Category Archives: SaaS

The Unique Solution for Travel Procurement

Earlier today we discussed the unique challenges of travel procurement – a nightmare shared by your employees as well as your finance team. After all, when booking a single trip can take an hour by the time you book your flight, rental car, hotel, airport transportation, off-airport parking, and dinner reservations and when finance has to sort through (tens of) thousands of expense reports literally by hand to determine whether their preferred carrier owes them a discount, how could you call it anything but?

Last week I was fortunate enough to see the answer. It’s called the Rearden Commerce Network (rebranded Deem in 2012) For those of you who read Spend Matters regularly, you’ll probably remember Jason more-or-less gushing about them as well in posts such as “Rearden unShrugged”* where he called Rearden the future of “personal” services Spend Management for employees.

Services are tough. They’re calendar-based, time critical, and dynamically priced. There’s a reason there is no Amazon, Google, or Yahoo for services. Even the brightest software engineers cringe at the thought of trying to build a single platform to handle such a diverse array of services. But as far as I can tell, Rearden has done it. Sure the interface still looks Web 1.0, but the capabilities are Web 2.0 all the way. And when they say you can book a complete trip in 10 minutes – they mean it. I saw it – and it works! I’ll tell you one thing – from an applications perspective, few software packages on the market today impress me. Even today, I equate most software applications with undifferentiated organic fertilizer (which is probably why you hear me mention so few companies in this blog – that, or I really am another one of those arrogant PhDs). But Rearden’s solution impressed me.

If you are a mid-size or larger company with a lot of travel related spend, I can not think of a single reason why you should not be using Rearden now! When your employees who travel regularly are probably wasting up to 20% of their time on travel arrangements (instead of a more palatable 5%, or less), when you have no way of easily tracking who you are spending your travel budget on (and if you qualify for discounts) and, more importantly, no way of enforcing that employees are buying against your preferred contracts when possible and sensible when there is this easy to use system that lets your employees do almost everything they need in a one stop shopping experience, allows your finance team to figure out whom you are spending on and in what amount, and allows your procurement team to enforce flexible spending rules. It’s a great addition to your supply chain suite!

Now, I’m not entirely sure whether it will scale up in the future to support all services in a consistent, coherent manner, even though they claim the platform was built to support any service you can imagine, but it is certainly capable of supporting any T&E service you can throw at it, and this is a very significant feat from both a business and a technological perspective. I can’t wait to get some time with their senior technology guys to do a deep dive into the architecture and technology. (After all, I need to use the PhD sometime!) If it’s as impressive as the business capability, I might just be inquiring as to whether or not that Director of Applications Engineering position that they are advertising can be done remotely.

* All posts prior to 2012 were removed in the Spend Matters site refresh in June, 2023.

Apexon and Performance Visibility

I’ve been blogging a lot about visibility lately and mentioning Apexon (acquired and merged with Infostretch in 2022) rather frequently even though I’m sure most of you haven’t heard about this little company or what they do. Last week I had the opportunity to sit down with Kevin Brooks (an occasional guest blogger here on Sourcing Innovation, in other words, his commentary on The Future of Sourcing is not slated to be his last post) and discuss where Apexon was, where it was going, how Apexon goes beyond spend visibility to performance visibility, and how this will eventually translate into actionable intelligence. (A topic I’ll be diving into in the future.)

Whereas most visibility solution providers (like Zycus, Procuri TrueSource [Procuri was acquired by Ariba, which was acquired by SAP] and biq [which was acquired by Opera Solutions, which rebranded ElectrifAI]) focus on spend visibility, or the determination of how much you spend on each of your suppliers, Apexon focuses on performance visibility, or the determination of how each supplier you are spending on is performing. Spend visibility solutions slice and dice on dollars, performance visibility solutions slice and dice on performance metrics – and the good ones slice and dice on the performance metrics of your choosing .

At this point, you’re probably asking are not all visibility providers equal, since all they do is aggregate, slice, and dice raw data ? Technically, they are very similar, but functionally they are quite distinct. The difference lies in the presentation, reporting, and intelligence they provide. Spend visibility solutions are configured to slice and dice on dollars, the data they extract from your underlying systems is your transactional data, and the drill down reports they provide are all pivoted around spend. Performance visibility solutions are custom configured by you to slice and dice on the metrics you track, the data they extract is the data relevant to your metrics, and the drill down reports they provide are all pivoted around metrics. Could one system do both? Yes. Do any current systems do both well? In my view, not really. (But I’m up for a conversation and a demo if anyone disagrees with me!)

However, to truly be useful to you, a system should also provide actionable intelligence. Dashboards that tell you where you are performing well, where you are performing poorly, and provide you with alternatives to improve these poor situations. Although still a young product, with 2.5 slated for release in the near future, this is where Apexon is starting to break away from the pack. Dashboards let you view your performance relative to your key metrics, and then the system lets you drill down into the root causes of poor performance and the root enablers of good performance. Comparison reports can then be used to determine possible solutions – such as shifting supply to a better performing supplier or shifting certain components to different manufacturing lines.

If supply chain performance is a concern for you, and it should be, I’d say it’s worth checking out the solution, especially if you are a traditional manufacturer, particularly in the automotive, aerospace, defense sectors, since Apexon has a strong client base in these sectors that have helped shape the solution since day one. Furthermore, since the solution is a 100% on-demand solution through your browser, the effort required to test-drive it is minimal. The solution works on a push model – at regular intervals (which can occur as frequently or infrequently as you desire), you push updated data to it, and it slices and dices that data on your metrics to give you the intelligence you need to improve your operations.

Is it all it can be? No, I think it can improve in future versions – but more importantly, since Apexon is intent on building its roadmap from customer feedback, I think it will get there. More importantly, you don’t have a lot of choices, most are new offerings, some companies are not as eager to work with their customers to improve the solution, and visibility is an area you can not ignore. Make sure it’s on your list of candidates, and if you’re nearby, check them out at one of their upcoming executive breakfast series in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Detroit (on October 17, 18, and 19). And keep an eye on Sourcing Innovation and Spend Matters – if he’s not traveling, I’d guess that you can bank on Jason hiding out in the back row of the windy city presentation, pounding out notes on his Dell and posting them to you hot off the wire.

Managed Services

In Part XI of The Sourcing Innovation Series, John Martin of Building SaaS authored a guest post on “The Future of Sourcing … for Services” which I discussed further in Part XII where I indicated that I not only agreed with John in that services sourcing is going to become a major part of your future sourcing initiatives but provided you with the outlines of an approach that I thought you could use to start getting a grip on your services procurement today.

Little did I know how timely these posts would be at the time I was preparing them. It turns out that as John and I were collecting our thoughts, Aberdeen was releasing their Supply Chain & Logistics Market Alert “The Next Wave: Managed Services for Supply Chain”. In this market brief, Aberdeen indicates that in a recent benchmark of 180 companies, 58% indicate that they are highly interested in using at least one of the following managed services:

  1. Network design and strategic inventory optimization
  2. Supply chain execution
  3. Trade compliance
  4. Supply chain planning
  5. Periodic Operational Improvement Analysis and System Tuning
  6. Data Quality Monitoring and Cleansing
  7. Data Mining and Analytics
  8. Supplier On-boarding

The study also points out that midsize companies are most likely to be interested in exploiting the expertise and resources of their technology vendors to augment their internal staff, though large companies are highly interested in supply chain execution support.

However, one of the most interesting facts is that companies that view their supply chain capabilities as “above” average for their industry are twice as likely as their peers to be highly interested in wanting to use managed services to help in supplier on-boarding and they are also more likely to desire trade compliance managed services. In other words, top performers appear to want to take advantages of any services that can help them perform better.

Finally, I’d like to emphasize that managed services offer companies the flexibility of gaining additional staff resources and expertise without having to hire people internally or having to abdicate complete process control to a third party-organization. In other words, it appears that, managed properly as part of an overall supply chain strategy, managed services can effectively augment (but not replace!) your internal supply chain teams.

On Demand V: Preparing for the Transition

Earlier this month, Purchasing.com published yet another article about on-demand entitled “On-demand promises to hook savings” stating that on-demand software and technology is more than just software on someone else’s servers—it’s a delivery method that supporters say improves ROI. However, what caught my attention about this article was that it gave some suggestions on how to prepare for a switch to an on-demand solution, something we haven’t really discussed yet in this series.

The suggestions offered by the article are:

  • Know what you need! Develop a solid statement of expectation or long-term roadmap for the specific problems you’re trying to fix and/or the specific results you need to attain. (Note: Discuss this list with your prospective solution provider(s)!)
  • Talk to other users of on-demand technology. Get their perspective on what on-demand is doing for them. (Note: Any on-demand solution provider I’ve talked to is usually more than happy to provide you with a list of contacts in their customer base that you can call.)

In addition, I would suggest you also:

  • Identify what systems your data currently resides in and what systems you are going to need to export data from and import data to. Make sure the solution you select either interfaces with these systems or supports standard input and output formats that will allow you to import and export the appropriate data as needed.
  • Start with a pilot. The beauty of on-demand is that solution providers can literally set up pilot accounts at a flick-of-a-switch that you can use to try-before-you-buy. In addition, most providers will engage in a pilot project with you to prove their solution at very little cost to you. (The standard seems to be free access to the system for the length of the pilot if you cover reasonable consulting costs and expenses. Some eSourcing providers with analytic solutions will even do preliminary one or two day proof-of-concepts on existing data for free to demonstrate the power of their tool.)

Another good point made in the article is that moving to an on-demand solution is not an overnight process as it’s a change management process. The most successful projects transition small groups of power users at a time. These power users become the internal proponents, experts, and trainers and help bring the rest of the organization over to the new organization.

The article mentions how Cox Enterprises was up and running on Procuri’s (acquired by Ariba, acquired by SAP) on-demand solution in under 3 months and saved 2M in a 10M spend category on their very first on-demand sourcing event. It’s important to note that this is a typical result – initial projects using the latest sourcing technologies built into on-demand platforms typically save users 10 to 30% since they not only enable transparency in your market, but remove inefficiencies from the process. If you check out Iasta’s typical results, they are 17 to 26% in aerospace/defense and automotive, 19 to 27% in consumer packaged goods, 18 to 25% in electronics, and 14 to 27% in food processing and food service, for example. (And some of their results at some of their new Fortune 500 clients have been just as impressive.) Iasta (acquired by Selectica, merged with b-Pack, renamed Determine, and acquired by Corcentric) maintained a complete list of categories it has assisted clients. Procuri also had a page dedicated to Success Stories.

Another impressive point of note is that ServiceMaster now claims to have a 99% compliance rate as a result of switching to an on-demand solution. I guess the only thing left to ask is if you have not tried on-demand, why? With solutions that encapsulate the end-to-end executable sourcing cycle in a single, consistent, easy-to-use desktop application, and the cost of a pilot project less than what a big five consulting company would likely charge you to analyze your processes and installed applications and tell you that you should probably supplement their weaknesses with an on-demand solution, it seems like an obvious choice to me. So, like fellow bloggers David Bush of eSourcingForum [WayBackMachine] and Tim Minahan of Supply Excellence [WayBackMachine], I’m going to keep extolling its virtues. The on-demand story will continue.


You can find the previous parts in the series, which started on eSourcing Forum:

  • I: The Good
  • II: The Not-So-Bad
  • III: And the Coming Pretty …
  • IV: And the Story Continues

The Sourcing Innovation Series: Part XI

Today I’d like to welcome guest contributor John Martin of Building SaaS to Sourcing Innovation with a guest post on The Future of Sourcing … for Services. If you followed the On-Demand series, you might remember that I discussed his article “How True Software-as-a-service Delivers More Value” extensively in the fourth installment of my On Demand series.

Our focus is on purchased services: consulting services, contingent labor, outsourcing services, field services, legal services, etc. What we’ve found, in providing our Services Procurement solution to dozens of Fortune 500 companies, is that companies gain the best results by managing the entire end-to-end lifecycle of purchased services.

The primary characteristic of service categories is that they are all different. However, I’ll mention a few commonalities about managing purchased services, then suggest a few ways we’re seeing our leading-edge customers manage and optimize services spending.

First, here are some generalized characteristics about purchased services:

– Services spending is growing: With the increases in business process outsourcing and focus on core competencies, services spending is increasing twice as fast as that on indirect goods spending, according to CAPS Research. Economically, the prices of services are also inherently inflationary since they are closely tied to labor costs, which increase over time faster than goods costs, on average – the Federal Bank of New York’s analysis shows that services’ inflation rate has stayed consistently 2.6% over that of goods over the last three decades.

Core PCE Goods and Core PCE Services Inflation 1968:1-2002:4

– Services spending is often difficult to manage centrally: For some services categories such as marketing services and legal services, functional executives “own” the supplier relationships and spending. For others such as contingent workers and facilities management services, the sourcing and purchasing activities are dispersed throughout the enterprise.

– There can be many unknowns at sourcing time: Some services such as contingent workers and print services have unique requisitions every time, so up-front pricing is difficult to establish. In other cases, the needs of the enterprise change more quickly than anticipated at sourcing time, which has led many multi-year outsourcing engagements to fail.

– Services spending involves a lot of uniqueness: every contract is unique with terms in the statement of work text, requisitions are often unique, services deliverables are different for every contract, and the quality and acceptance measures differ by category, contract, and deliverable.

– “Value delivered” is often a key concept for purchased services: When a services provider touches your customers directly (such as call-center outsourcing or field installation services) or can positively impact your business results (IT application development services, marketing services), the potential value of those services becomes a multi-dimensional concept (including multiple flavors of “quality”) to continuously measure and improve.

– Finally, services involve many additional risks: When a supplier’s workers come onsite to deliver the services, now there are risks to manage regarding security, safety, confidentiality, etc. For contingent workers, there are HR-related risks such as co-employment and worker classification, as well as tracking the results of prior work performed by the worker.

As a result of these characteristics of purchased services, sourcing becomes an ongoing process rather than an event. For example, in some categories such as contingent workforce and print, the sourcing event creates the marketplace of preferred suppliers, and each requisition is sent out to the suppliers for bid – sourcing at procurement time. For almost all services categories, the delivery phase produces information that allows better sourcing and contract negotiating in the next sourcing phase.

After managing this iterative process for a few years, it’s almost impossible to continue to improve the cost basis of services through sourcing, at least since wage pricing started firming up a couple of years ago.

So we’re seeing companies turn to other ways to improve services sourcing, as hints to the future of sourcing. Extending Eric Strovink’s compliance comments and Tim Minahan’s “frontline sourcing” concept (explained over on Supply Excellence [WayBackMachine]), here are some trends that we see improving services sourcing going forward:

– Link sourcing with procure-to-pay and spend analysis: Some would say that for services, contract execution and compliance are everything. The cost savings and value from contracted deliverables are on paper after sourcing, but are actually captured only through a tightly coupled procure-to-pay program. Then, spend analysis on the detailed requisition, deliverable and invoice activities allows improved re-sourcing the next time, in a cyclical sourcing-improvement process.

– Actively use learning strategies throughout the cycle to improve sourcing: Since services have many unknowns at sourcing time, and much of the services value is determined during the delivery phase, companies are engineering their supplier relationships and processes to maximize learning. For example, multi-sourcing sets up a competition among service providers, and spending can be directed to the better-performing suppliers. Companies are starting to track every touch-point with a supplier, gathering qualitative information through surveys to gain much more insight into value and transaction costs. Service-level metrics are becoming much more detailed and continuously monitored (with direct data feeds from the services supplier) to gain insight into the supplier’s processes and capabilities that underlie their delivered quality and value.

– Manage and shape demand: The demand drivers for many services are fragmented and hard to pin down – definitely not available in a production forecast. Since service prices tend to rise over time, it pays to focus on controlling costs through internal demand management, rather than just increasing pressure on suppliers each year. Demand for services is also malleable, as which tasks performed internally versus by the supplier can be changed if needed. Investigating internal demand drivers and supplier interaction processes can lead to ways to reduce time and costs by shifting activities to/from the supplier, redrawing the process boundaries, and eliminating non-value-add tasks performed by either party.

– Build tighter linkages into suppliers’ systems: In the direct goods world, linking into the suppliers’ inventory, logistics, and production systems is a now-common practice. In services, however, this is much less prevalent. In addition to pulling service-level metrics from the supplier (such as call and incident tracking information for call-center outsourcers), companies are adding system integrations for requisitions, deliverables, and invoices to greatly reduce transaction costs and eliminate the “echo-chamber” interaction costs of haggling over invoices post-delivery. Going forward, there is emerging interest in linking into suppliers’ availability, skill capability, and project tracking systems to better optimize delivery processes, and a desire for better collaboration tools throughout the lifecycle of interactions with the supplier.

– Invest more in supplier discovery and development: Most large companies have too many services supplier relationships, so supplier consolidation is the first effort. However, in order to keep up with the state-of-the-art in purchased services, we see a need to provide better tools for finding and starting up relationships with high-quality emerging services suppliers. Along the same lines, companies will need to more proactively develop niche and high-performing services suppliers in the upcoming years.

Thanks again to John Martin for this insightful post on The Future of Sourcing … Services.