Monthly Archives: November 2010

Procurement – Why we really matter!

Today’s guest post is from David Furth, VP of Marketing at Hiperos. David has been in Procurement for over 20 years and has held senior positions at Perfect Commerce, BasWare, RightWorks/i2, and Deloitte Consulting.

Procurement is on the verge of experiencing its next major transformation. During the past ten years, the emphasis has been on optimization – leveraging spend, improving the sourcing process, and becoming more efficient across all aspects of the P2P and Order-to-Cash value stream.

As a result of these improvements, companies now rely on suppliers, outsourcers, and other third parties more than ever. A fact now recognized by C-level executives, boards of directors, and regulators, alike. Why? The increased reliance on these third parties has occurred without implementing the same level of control or having the same level of visibility that was in place when the work was being performed internally. The result is increased risk to company performance and brand reputation.

As a result, forward-looking procurement leaders are transforming their organizations. They still maintain the same obligation to keep costs down. But they have added the responsibility to continuously assess risk, pre- and post-award, and introduce integrated processes and controls across their companies to mitigate that risk by working closely with other functional areas, business lines, and geographies. During the next few years, procurement will be looked upon to provide important guidance around how key external contributors to their companies’ value chains are managed.

This is why more and more procurement executives are stepping forward to introduce a consistent method for managing providers across a wider breadth of their extended enterprise. These executives recognize that just because the contract assigns responsibility/liability for just about “everything”, this does not absolve their companies from the responsibility of ensuring each provider is living up to all contractual obligations. This requires implementing management control programs that actively monitor both performance and compliance to help ensure suppliers are meeting all their obligations.

This is an enormous responsibility that requires consolidating requirements across a large number of stakeholders, communicating expectations to all providers, collecting information and documentation about current status, and collaborating with providers to remedy issues when shortfalls are identified.To be successful requires a new attitude, a thoughtful approach, buy-in from key stakeholders, and the appropriate technology. Despite the best of efforts, responsibility or risk cannot entirely be outsourced.

So, when you consider the consequences of suppliers failing to meet their obligations, regulators handing out fines for poor oversight of third parties, and investors losing confidence in your brand, it is not surprising to see real action taking place. The past few years have made it abundantly clear, it is not a good strategy to expect that a great contract will get you great results, ensure providers follow the law, or prevent them from acting unethically. Therefore, it is imperative to have the appropriate level of controls to mitigate to the appropriate level of risk. This has not been the traditional way of thinking, but that is rapidly changing.

Thanks, David.

Share This on Linked In

Should You Be Sharing the Risk?

A recent article in the Supply Chain Management Review on “procurement risk management: what it takes to be a leader”, which correctly states that risk is part of business, noted that, even though procurement has become a frequent topic in the risk management conversation, few companies are translating their trepidations into formal procurement risk management capabilities. Considering that risks have grown considerably in recent years and that at least 7 in 10 companies will experience a major disruption this year, with almost 9 in 10 experiencing some form of disruption, this is not good. Risk management needs to be front and centre in supply chain planning.

But is that enough? Let’s say you put it front and centre, identify your top ten risks, and outline your risk mitigation and/or recovery plans for each risk. Classic thinking would say you’ve done a great job, but have you? If it’s a natural disaster, you’ve probably done all you can do since it’s an event that no one has any control over. But what if it’s a production line breakdown at a key plant of a sole-source supplier? Have you done everything you can? Maybe there’s nothing you could have done to prevent it, but, chances are, there was something your supplier could have done to prevent it.

And maybe they would have if they had more incentive — which leads me to believe that the leaders identified in the referenced 2009 Accenture Study who insist on risk-sharing clauses and back-to-back contracts might be on to something. If both parties agree to share risks, and the costs associated with such risks, both parties are more likely to be alert to risk signals and to take action before a minor interruption becomes a major disruption. If both parties are serious about risk, it’s the right way to go.

Share This on Linked In

For an Alternative to the Ariba Supplier Network, Don’t Overlook Ketera

Ever since Ariba decided to hike their already hefty fees, there’s been a lot of chatter about the Ariba Supplier Network on and off the blogs, including a great piece on An American Editor, reprinted here on SI, on the harbinger of getting paid.

Since that time, SpendMatters has been covering multiple Ariba Supplier Network Alternatives, including Hubwoo, Basware, and OB10, but has not made a peep about Ariba’s smaller competitor further down the valley. Now, Ketera may not be as big or loud as Basware, Hubwoo, or OB10, but they have a fairly solid offering and one advantage the other guys don’t have — a very low price point, which is critical for the SME market who can’t afford $20,000 a year just for the privilege of transacting online, which is not even close to new technology anymore.

The Ketera Network is a lot bigger than one might think. While they haven’t reached a Trillion dollars in transactions yet, 50 Billion is nothing to scoff at and with over 100,000 buyers and over 1 Million suppliers, it has reached a respectable size and is still growing.

And, most importantly, it’s very cost effective. It’s essentially free to try, as a seller can list for free using their Amazon-like model and pay 3.5% of the sale, and as soon as the seller closes in on $7,000 in sales, the seller can upgrade to the premiere membership which, at $25/month or $250/year, costs the seller less than pennies on the dollar, and quickly becomes a much more affordable alternative than the ASN at the $16,130 mark. For example, even though (to the best of my knowledge) Ariba limits the transaction fees they charge a seller to $20,000 a year, a seller has to do 1.29 Million in business before the cost drops below 15.5 basis points.

The following table should help an organization evaluating their options put the networks in perspective:

Network Ketera Network (KN) Ariba Supplier Network (ASN)
Service Level Sponsored (Private Buyer Catalogs) Public Listing (Amazon-Like Model) Premiere Membership Standard
Service Cost Free 3.5% of Sales 250/year 0.155% of Sales, up to $20,000
Good When only selling via private catalogs to KN buyers doing less than $7,143 of public sales doing more than $7,143 of public sales doing (considerably) more than 1.29M of sales per year with Ariba buyers

And the following table should help an organization understand the relative costs of the KN Premiere Membership vs. the Standard Ariba Supplier Network Membership:

 

Cost Per Dollar of Sale
Sales Volume KN ASN Winner
10,000 0.02500000 0.01550000 ASN
16,130 0.01549907 0.01550000 KN
100,000 0.00250000 0.01550000 KN
1,000,000 0.00025000 0.01550000 KN
1,300,000 0.00019231 0.01538462 KN
10,000,000 0.00002500 0.00200000 KN
100,000,000 0.00000250 0.00020000 KN
1,000,000,000 0.00000025 0.00002000 KN

 

The Ketera Network may not be right for everyone, but it’s something every SME should definitely investigate.

Share This on Linked In

Analytics V: Spend “Analysis”

Today’s post is by Eric Strovink of BIQ.

As an engineer who originally entered the supply management space in 2001 to build a new spend analysis system, over the last 9 years I’ve watched marketing departments consistently “dumb down” the original broad and exciting definition of spend analysis that I remember from those days, to something really quite ordinary. For example, here are the steps required for classic data warehousing:

  1. Define a database schema and a set of standard reports (once, or rarely)
  2. Gather and transform data such that it matches the schema
  3. Load the transformed data into the database
  4. Publish to the user base
  5. Repeat steps 2-4 for life of warehouse

And here are the steps required for what has come to be termed “spend analysis”:

  1. Define a database schema and a set of standard reports (once, or rarely)
  2. Gather and transform data such that it matches the schema
  3. Load the transformed data into the database
  4. Group and map the data via a rules engine
  5. Publish to the user base
  6. Repeat steps 2-5 for life of warehouse

Not much difference.

You might ask, how can spend analysis vendors compete with each other, when the steps are so simple, and when commodity technologies such as commercial OLAP databases, commercial OLAP viewers, and commercial OLAP reporting engines can be brought to bear on any data warehouse? Well, it’s been tough, and it’s especially tough now that ERP vendors are joining the fun, but they compete in several ways:

  • Our step 4 is better [than those other guys’ step 4].
  • [briefly, until it failed the laugh test] Our static reports are so insightful that you don’t even need anyone on staff any more.
  • [suite vendors’ (tired) mantra] “Integration” with other modules
  • “Enrichment” of the spend dataset with MWBE data, supplier scoring on various criteria, and any other ways that might exist to try to add checklist features for analysts that may broaden interest in the spend analysis dataset beyond simple visibility.

It’s all very discouraging, but the doctor and I will continue to point out that spend analysis is not just A/P analysis; it can’t be done with just one dataset; and it’s not a set of static reports or a dopey dashboard, even though some vendors and IT departments would like to think it is. Spend analysis is a data analysis problem just like any other data analysis problem, and it requires extensible and user-friendly tools that empower people to explore their data for opportunities without third-party assistance. Those data come from multiple sources, not just the A/P system; many datasets will need to be built and analyzed; and from them, hugely important lessons will be learned.

The above notwithstanding, building a single A/P spend cube is a useful exercise. If you’ve never done it before, you will find things that will save you money. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Previous: Analytics IV: OLAP: The Imperfect Answer

Next: Analytics VI: Conclusion

Share This on Linked In