Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to e-Procurement: Costing a Solution

Mostly Harmless, Part XXI

Previous Post

Every solution costs more than the sticker price. But how much more? In this post, we’ll outline how to cost the various solutions as well as a methodology for calculating the expected value.

First of all there’s the cost of the license, which can be significant. If the system is enterprise, and especially if it’s an installed solution, this can be a very significant up-front cost in the six figure range. Then there’s the maintenance, which is required for support and mandatory for some solutions, and built into the price of on-demand/SaaS solutions. This can be as high as 22% a year for some solutions. Then there’s the installation and integration costs. Even a SaaS solution will require some setup, and the e-Procurement system will need to be integrated with accounting systems, sourcing systems, payment systems, and other enterprise (resource planning) systems in order for the organization to extract maximum value for the system.

Then there’s training costs. Even though a good system will be extremely easy to use and self-explanatory where basic functions are concerned, some training will still be required. This is especially true for the administrators, who have to maintain the system, and analysts, who have to analyze processes, performance, and spending. In addition to training costs, there will be support costs. Administrators will have to be employed to continually maintain the system (data) and train new users. If the system is installed, they will also have to do patches and upgrades in addition to maintaining system data and (business) processes.

If the organization is looking for an installed or hosted ASP solution, there will also be hardware costs, database costs, application server costs, and middleware costs. These costs can easily dwarf the system costs if the organization doesn’t already have any of these solutions. And even if the organization has some of these solutions in place, there will likely be additional license fees. Finally, there will likely be additional IT (support) costs to maintain the hardware, which will have to be upgraded on a regular basis, and the supporting software.

When all is said in done, the cost of a solution can end up being 10 times the sticker price, so it’s important to understand the total cost of ownership before choosing a solution. This is not to say that a solution with a seven figure total cost of ownership is expensive. It might be, it might not. It all depends upon how much it costs relative to other solutions being evaluated, how many users will use the system, how much it will increase organizational efficiency, and what ROI the organization expects to see.

Fortunately, the calculation of expected value is quite straightforward once the TCO is known. It’s simply a matter of computing the ROI according to the following formula:

(savings expected from increased efficiency +savings expected from maverick spend reductions +savings expected from newly identified opportunities) /total expected cost

While some of these numbers may appear hard to calculate, they are easy to estimate and what is really important is order of magnitude. For example:

  • if the organization expects to increase efficiency 200%, that’s a 65% workforce reduction against current workload; if the organization currently requires 20 people to handle tactical procurement tasks, at an average salary of 62K, that’s a reduction of 13 people or about 800K per year
  • if the organization currently has a maverick spend rate of 30% and expects, using third party benchmarks, to reduce that by 66%, that’s an 20% reduction in maverick spend; if maverick spend, on average, costs the organization 5% of spend on average, if the organization spends 100M annually, that’s a projected savings of 1% (20% of 5%), or 1 M in one-time savings
  • if the organization expects that an e-Procurement system will identify additional savings opportunities on 20% of spend annually and that the average savings that will be obtained will be 10%, then the organization would expect to save 2% of spend, or 2M annually

All told, if the organization expects to use the system for five years, it would expect to save 15M over five years (5*800K + 1M + 5*2M). If the total cost of ownership of the system was determined to be 3M for five years, then the organization would expect to see an ROI of 5X, which should be a buy decision. Of course, if the calculations worked out that the organization only expected to save 5 M, and the ROI was only 1.6, the decision should be to find a more cost effective solution.

For more details on cost calculations, and a starting spreadsheet, see Sourcing Innovation’s post on Uncovering the True Cost of On-Premise Sourcing & Procurement Software in the archives.

Next Post: Procurement Models

Share This on Linked In

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to e-Procurement: Catalogs & Contracts, Part II

Mostly Harmless, Part XX

Previous Post

The last post defined catalogs and contracts and discussed reasons why they will need to be revisited and revised on a regular basis. As promised, this post will address the associated challenges of catalog and contract maintenance, some associated best practices, and the benefits that could be expected from an appropriate e-Procurement solution.

Common Challenges

  • Unused Item/Contract Identification

    Catalogs are continuously updated and procurement constantly negotiates and renegotiates contracts. However, how many of the items are ever bought and what percentage of the contracts are used for more than a short time?

  • New Item Identification

    What items were bought this month/quarter that were never bought before? Which are not associated with a contract or an approved catalog?

  • Similar Item Identification

    For those items which are not on contract, were there similar items on contract that would have sufficed? If not, were there at least similar items in approved catalogs that would have worked?

Best Practices

  • Automatically Flag Items Not on Contract and Force Supervisory Review

    The best way to reduce maverick spend is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Forcing a supervisor to review all purchases not on contract (above a certain dollar limit or for products / categories there are contracts for) can put a significant dent in contract spend.

  • Automatically Flag Items Not in the Catalog and Force Procurement Review

    Not everything will be on contract, but there’s no reason that the majority of goods and services that the organization needs to buy on a regular basis can not be in the catalog. Unless the item is brand new, it should be in the catalog if it is needed. Forcing Procurement review will minimize the purchase of off-catalog items where price, and associated spending levels, are unmonitored and where pricing could spiral out of control.

  • Automatically Identify Items in Contracts and Catalogs that Have Not Been Purchased in the Last Month, Quarter, Year

    New items need to be tracked and monitored as any new items bought in quantity on a regular basis are prime candidates for future contracts.

Potential Benefits

  • Improved Contract Compliance / Reduced Maverick Spend

    The automatic flagging of off-contract and off-catalog purchases for manual review and approval can greatly increase contract compliance while simultaneously reducing maverick spend.

  • Easy Identification of Additional Savings Opportunities

    The automatic identification and tracking off off-contract items and associated volumes can identify some of the best opportunities for future savings opportunities.

Once the catalogs and contracts are up to date, it is time to begin the cycle anew. The next post will move on to how to cost a solution.

Next Post: Costing a Solution

Share This on Linked In

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to e-Procurement: Catalogs & Contracts, Part I

Mostly Harmless, Part XIX

Previous Post

A(n e-)catalog is an online catalog that lists products and services that a supplier is offering for sale. It can take many forms. It can be a simple flat file listing all products and services that the supplier sends to the buyer (who can then maintain it in their catalog system). It can be a database that can be queried. It can be the supplier’s website. It can be a punch-out marketplace. It can be an e-marketplace. It can be a virtual supplier network. As long as it lists item for sale and prices, it can be considered a catalog for the purposes of e-Procurement.

A contract is an agreement between two parties which, if it contains the elements of a valid legal agreement, is enforceable by law. In the procurement realm, a contract is usually between a buyer and a supplier for one or more services, under one or more conditions, at contracted rates. Contracts are generally managed by a contract management system, which may or may not be part of the e-Procurement system as contract management is a key part of the (e-)Sourcing cycle.

At the end of a procurement cycle, and before the next cycle begins, the catalogs and contracts need to be revisited to make sure they are still relevant and up to date. This is because, over the course of time, the following will happen:

  • the number of products purchased not in the catalog will increase

    over time, new needs will arise and replacements will have to be found for items no longer being manufactured

  • the number of items in the catalog no longer purchased will increase

    over time, needs will change and certain items will no longer be required

  • the number of items purchased against a contract will decrease

    as needs change and old items are no longer needed and new items not contracted for are required, the usefulness of contracts will decrease

  • contracts will expire

    and the pricing they contain will have to be renewed, revised, or removed from the system

The next post will outline some of the challenges associated with catalog and content management, some best practices, and some of the benefits that can be expected.

Next Post: Catalogs & Contracts, Part I

Share This on Linked In

Has Coupa Settled on a Coupe? Part III

In our first post, we discussed how, when Davie ran The Coupa Factory, their strategy was innovation focussed and they were constantly charging ahead in their efforts to bring Procurement Independence to the masses but that, lately, it seems that their strategy has shifted to putting customer acquisition first and building a better platform second. In our last post, we reviewed what they have accomplished over the past eighteen months, which isn’t too shabby to say the least (especially compared to some of their peers which do not appear to have innovated at all), but noted that there’s nothing to really shake your foundations … which is a shame considering that had Coupa taken benchmarking and supplier ratings to the next level, they could have knocked your Procurement socks off. This is the subject of this post.

In order for benchmarks to be useful, they have to be meaningful. In order for a comparison to be meaningful, it has to be against like items. And while you can compare apples to oranges, unless you’re comparing the spectra of dried samples in powdered form, it doesn’t make sense. The reality is that savings, request, order, and invoice metrics only make sense if the comparison is against a similar company of a similar size in a similar vertical buying similar products. Consider free-form requests … depending on company size that’s going to range from hundreds per year to tens of thousands per year. Frequency of self-approval … that’s not only going to depend on corporate policies but the types of goods being purchased. If the system is mainly used to purchase office supplies, who’s going to waste time approving every small order? But if the system is being used to buy high priced electronics, different story. PO value will not only vary widely between companies, but within a company. A purchase order for a weekly office supplies order in a small company will be a fraction of a purchase order for a new set of servers. Active suppliers will vary widely depending upon the size of the company and how many different types of products are being bought. Had Coupa defined appropriate verticals, segmented the verticals into appropriate sizes, and insured that the metrics were meaningful (even if that meant waiting until there were more customers in some verticals), this could have been extremely useful. However, right now, it’s interesting at best, and could be dangerous if misunderstood.

In order for supplier rankings to be useful, they have to be against meaningful metrics, and those rankings need to be defined by a majority of affected users. If they are random rankings defined by random users against random products, they are not very useful, especially if they are done by users who have only used the supplier’s products once and not users who have to work with the supplier and its products every day. In order to truly rank a supplier, a company needs to insure that all of the relevant users who use the supplier’s products or services regularly or who interact with the supplier as part of their role rank the supplier. This means that the buyer needs to send out mandatory surveys to these users. While a buyer can easily send out a survey through your standard SIM or e-Negotiation tool, what a buyer normally can’t do through these tools is figure out which organizational users are in the best position to rate the supplier. However, as Coupa enables all spend related to a supplier to be captured in the system, it’s a pretty easy query to figure out which buyers are the biggest user’s of a supplier’s products and which buyers should be ranking the suppliers. If Coupa had enabled the construction of supplier performance surveys which could be sent to the regular users of the supplier’s products in a single click, and then made it impossible for a buyer to requisition anything until the mandatory survey was completed, think of how useful it could be. However, right now, like benchmarking, it’s interesting, but not very useful.

Hopefully these oversights are just the result of Coupa going through the growing pains associated with a brand new management team and rapid customer acquisition. When you consider that The Coupa Sunflower was only starting to blossom, it would be nice to see Coupa return to the days when its releases were much more than coupacetic. After all, why should they settle for a coupe when they can build a dragster? It only takes a little bit of innovation in the right direction to bring back the excitement to Coupa Time.

Share This on Linked In

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

Mostly Harmless, Part XVIII

Previous Post

In the last post, the analysis process was discussed and some of the basic questions were defined. This post will address the some of the associated challenges of the analysis process, some associated best practices, and the benefits that could be expected from an appropriate e-Procurement solution.

Common Challenges

The literature will claim that there are many challenges with regards to spend analysis, and that these challenges will revolve around data cleansing, data classification, and data enrichment, but the reality is that there are generally only two real challenges: access and analysis.

  • Data Access

    In order to do data analysis, an analyst needs access to the majority of the relevant organizational data that represents at least 90% of the spend in the categories that the buyer wishes to analyze. Without a centralized e-Procurement system, this can be difficult as some spend will be in the ERP/MRP, some in the accounting systems, some in the P-Card system, and some in various departmental systems.

  • Insightful Analysis

    Top N reports are not analysis. Spending trends are not analysis. Automated reports are not analysis. Analysis is the ability to slice and dice the data eight ways from Sunday to allow for the identification of unusual spending patterns that represent true savings opportunity.

Best Practices

  • Force Every Purchase Through the e-Procurement System

    Forcing every purchase through the system not only significantly reduces maverick spend, but it provides a centralized repository of all transactions which provides a solid foundation for spend analysis.

  • Force Every Payment Through the e-Procurement System

    If the e-Procurement system does not support e-Payments, insure that it supports a record of payment against each invoice and that all payments are loaded into the system and cross-referenced with associated invoices, goods receipts, and purchase orders. This is necessary to take spend analysis to the next level. While many vendors will claim that only AP data is needed for spend analysis, the reality is that AP, invoice, and purchase order data is needed for spend analysis. Without the m-way analysis, it is impossible to tell if overpayments, which could be recovered, were made. Without the m-way analysis, it is impossible to identify all maverick spend, which is the first step in reducing future maverick spend. Etc.

  • Do Ad-Hoc Analysis Whenever There is a Possibility for Savings

    Traditionally, data analysis was avoided because the cost of analysis was high relative to the savings potential. However, with the right tool, the cost of an ad-hoc analysis is no longer the five or six figures it used to cost, it’s now three or four figures — which makes even a maximum five figure savings opportunity worth analyzing, especially if a preliminary analysis can be done in an hour or two! Even if only one in ten hunches pays off, if it only costs $1,000 of an analysts time to do an analysis, and the one pay off is $100,000, that’s a 10X ROI.

Potential Benefits

  • Savings

    Real analysis will identify overpayments that will lead to immediate savings. Real analysis will identify maverick spending, which will lead to more savings when it is prevented. Real analysis will uncover new savings opportunities, which will lead to more savings. Real analysis is savings.

  • Better Procurement

    Finding and eliminating maverick spend through better processes leads to better procurement. Understanding spending patterns leads to better procurement. Saving money leads to better procurement.

Once the analysis is complete, it is time to review and update the catalogs and contracts, which is the subject of the next post.

Next Post: Catalogs & Contracts, Part I

Share This on Linked In