Monthly Archives: October 2013
Early Payment Discounts vs. Early Payment Rebates
Are we dealing with six of one and half a dozen of the other? After reading “The Art of the Play” (PCubed.com), I have to wonder.
They are different in that you get one right away and you get the other later, and they are different in that one is just a reduction in spend and the other can be treated as an income stream, if the CFO so desires, but in the end they both have the same effect on the bottom line — less spend.
So why would an organization favour one over the other when the big difference is capturing the savings now versus capturing the savings later? If the organization was limited in cash and was trying to maximize savings, then capturing the savings right away would definitely make more sense, but if the organization was flush with cash and the supplier offered tiered rebates that improved with volume, then the organization might want to wait until later. Otherwise, the doctor can’t see much of a difference.
However, one area where there is a big difference is paying for a platform vs. paying for a service, especially for a big company. For example, the Oxygen Finance model described in the article is to provide you with a service where you pay up to 50% of the discount or rebate captured by transaction. While this is a good deal for a mid-sized company that might not have the up-front cash required to implement the end-to-end e-Procurement solution required to effectively take advantage of discounts and rebates offered by suppliers for quick payments, this can be a very expensive solution for a large enterprise. Consider a company that spends 250 Million a year, the low-end of the market for Oxygen Finance. If the average rebate is 1.5%, and you give one third of that up to the service provider, then the organization is paying 1.25 M a year for the solution, and only achieving a 2X ROI.
A company of this size can acquire a SCF solution for a fraction of this cost and realize a much larger ROI.
When you dive in, you realize that there are only three reasons most companies can’t create or take advantage of most of the early payment discount and rebate opportunities available to them:
- Invoices aren’t getting in the system fast enough
because most of them are coming in as (e-)paper. - Approved invoices aren’t getting to AP fast enough
because routings for approval take too long. - Procurement doesn’t have the manpower to negotiate rebates on 100% of spend
because there are too many suppliers.
And while these were valid problems a few years ago, without (m)any real solutions (that an average organization could afford), today:
- An organization can acquire a SaaS end-to-end invoice automation framework, such as the one offered by Nipendo, that will convert all incoming invoices into one standard e-format for six figures.
- An organization can acquire a number of rules-based e-Procurement and invoice automation solutions (including Nipendo‘s) that will automatically approve and route all error-free invoices that match a PO or contract to the AP system and route those that require manual correction or approval to the right individual for online (e-mail) approval.
- An organization can see significant returns addressing only 80% of the spend which is typically with less than 20% of the supply base.
An organization that takes this approach can typically acquire a solution for (much) less than 500K a year, save 1.5% on 200 M of spend, and see a (minimum) 6X return, which is the return you should be looking for from an e-Procurement solution.
Maybe there’s another reason for a large enterprise to go transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management, but if there is, the doctor ain’t seeing it — and he’s been covering SCF for years. As far as he is concerned, the sweet-spot for transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management is the 50M to 250M range, because the implementation cost of the necessary end-to-end e-Procurement, invoice-Automation, and SCF solution isn’t that much cheaper for a mid-sized organization than for a Global 3000, and at less than 200M of addressable spend, the ROI multiplier starts to drop considerably.
Any differing opinions?
The Evolution of Procurement, and Where It Is Headed
Today’s guest post is from Joe Payne, Vice President of Professional Services at Source One Management Services, LLC and co-author of “Managing Indirect Spend: Enhancing Profitability Through Strategic Sourcing”.
While strategic sourcing and procurement groups around the globe continue to make headway into new departments and address categories previously off the table, their popularity with business owners and stakeholders has never been lower. Headlines and titles like “Everybody Hates Procurement: Here’s How To Fix It” and “The End of Procurement, Forever!” and “The Problem with Procurement: Misalignment” seem to pop up every day.
I attribute these headlines to the growing pains strategic sourcing and procurement will naturally experience as the role of this group continues to expand and evolve. And evolve it has! In the 11 or so years I have been at Source One, I have seen Strategic Sourcing transition from rarity, to necessity, to commonplace, to part of a larger spend management strategy. In its current form, and as it heads into the future, it looks to me that modern procurement has developed to be just as much about negotiating with an organization’s leadership as it is negotiating with a supplier base. In fact, I tell most college grads entering this industry to be prepared to challenge those within their organization, learn how to market their group, and sharpen their debate skills. Getting savings is the easy part, getting your organization to act in their own self-interest is the challenge. This is not a job for the weak-willed or thin-skinned! To explain what I mean, here is a quick rundown of the change I have witnessed.
The Reactive Buying Era
When I first started at Source One, most of the purchasing groups in the companies we worked with dealt exclusively with raw materials. If the personnel had “sourcing” in their title, it was rare, and many of our customers did not have any sort of sourcing initiative for their indirect spend items. Stakeholders and the department heads responsible for budgeting conducted the purchasing for their needs.
In those days, we did a lot of explaining to potential customers just on what Strategic Sourcing was. It wasn’t a commonplace concept even within Procurement, so those outside of it — Finance and IT, for example — had very little knowledge of it. Especially in the mid-market, any group with spend management tactics that were more advanced than three bid purchasing or preferred supplier relationships were the exception, not the rule.
The Sourcing Era
Slowly, Strategic Sourcing became more and more familiar until it ultimately blossomed. Strategic Sourcing practices were first used by a limited number of organizations as they purchased their raw materials. Seeing the successes in that category, organizations then asked these “sourcing” teams to look into areas like packaging and shipping. Strategic Sourcing’s applicability continued to grow as success after success was reported. Subsequently, most departments were soon asked to start implementing strategic sourcing practices, and procurement departments began to be more directly involved in buying decisions.
The Category Management Error
In its latest form, Strategic Sourcing is now tied into category management, meaning companies are hiring or developing sourcing experts for their individual spend categories — telecom, media buys, office equipment — or departments — Capital Projects, Marketing, IT — and restructuring their departments with the goal of achieving near 100% spend under management. With dedicated sourcing experts managing each category and an intense focus on supplier relationships, those sourcing departments effective in category management are not only able to take advantage of market conditions today, but are better able to predict future market conditions and opportunities within the managed categories.
Even utilizing these strategies, a common problem remains. These sourcing teams lack the institutional clout within their organization to be effective in managing spend. SOPs are reluctantly followed, if they are followed at all, by the end users, and the majority of the end users and stakeholders do their best to avoid involving the sourcing team. Additionally, sourcing initiatives are often dead on arrival, killed in the name of deadlines or supplier relationships
The Change Management Era
So, that’s a short history of Strategic Sourcing’s development. So where is the industry going from here?
From what I have seen in the work we perform for the clients of Source One, category managers must now become “change managers”. “Change managers” are those leaders who can navigate their organization’s structures and barriers to be effective, and transition their department’s role from that of a reactive-tactical resource to one that is proactive and strategic.
“Navigate” here means “maneuvering around” objections or otherwise getting things done, and there are a few ways that I have seen different sourcing groups approach this. At the last conference I attended, I heard some sourcing teams discussing their use of a “bell cow” — a single resource within their group that is skilled in working with department heads and generating acceptance from end users for their group’s sourcing activities. In other cases, I have witnessed sourcing departments working through an executive sponsor, often times a CFO, to help push their group’s agenda items. A third, slower method I’ve seen used to promote sourcing initiatives is the granular approach, meaning the sourcing group is using any quick-and-easy method available to build credibility and support, end user by end user and department by department. Not surprisingly, this third method is high resource-low return, and often causes some areas ripe for sourcing to go untouched. Of these, the proper solution is the one that works best within a particular organization.
When sourcing groups improve their internal relationships, the stakeholders are better encouraged to participate and end users are better encouraged to comply with sourcing activities, increasing their chances of success. These project successes give Procurement something tangible to market internally and use as leverage in drumming up support for future initiatives, and also exposes their unique skills to the organization as a whole. Through continued project success and internal relationship-strengthening, Procurement will slowly be seen as an integral and centric resource to the company; its unique skillset prized not only for its ability to identify cost savings for the organization but for its ability to generate value for the organization as a whole.
Summary
As the need for more strategic spend management practices increases, procurement departments are evolving to meet these newfound challenges. But rest assured; the industry’s progress is not slowing or stopping. Adapting to the industry’s modern changes and challenges is only setting the stage for the next evolutionary step, which will be to become a revenue center for the organization. The better equipped a procurement team is now at handling the challenges of the current market, the better prepared it will be to predict and stay ahead of future trends
Thanks, Joe.
Intengo – Mastering the e-Procurement Tango in Turkey
When we last covered Intengo back in 2010, they were doing the e-Sourcing Tango in Turkey. At that time, they provided an on-demand e-Negotiation platform built around (multi-round) e-RFX and e-Auction with a sprinkling of Supplier Information Management (SIM) and early stage catalog management thrown in. A project-oriented system, it was a breeze to set up a new RFX or e-Auction event in the system and get a new sourcing event going. One of the unique features of the platform was the calendar view, which integrated with Microsoft Outlook and hot-linked to all of the relevant screens in the relevant projects, and which allowed a buyer to get a quick summary of where they were and what they needed to do at any given time. Other cool features were item-level currency support, smart unit support, and bulk-updates on (filtered) lots or items.
Since then they have been dancing up a storm and they are now the leading e-Sourcing and e-Procurement provider in Turkey, with over 100 clients, including a few notable international clients with operations throughout Europe and Asia. That’s right, they have migrated from a basic e-Sourcing application to an end-to-end e-Procurement solution in an effort to serve their clients better. Since 2010, they have added requisition and purchase order support, price lists and full catalog support, delivery notification and tracking, and integration with the big ERPs (Oracle and SAP) for master data management, invoice management, and e-Payment / Accounts Payable integration. In addition, they have also integrated budget management into the e-Procurement process.
A user can begin a requisition from a catalog or from a free-form request. The request can be sent straight to a (preferred) supplier if it is within the user’s spending limit (as defined by the budget), turned into a Purchase Order (after being approved, if necessary), or turned into an RFX or e-Auction. If the request is turned into an RFX or e-Auction sourcing event, the RFX or Auction is pre-populated with pricing from the most recent supplier price list (at the volume level) or catalog if pricing is available. If the request is sent straight to the supplier, the supplier can accept the request and provide delivery information, reject the request, or decline due to incorrect or insufficient information. In the last case, the buyer is notified and corrections can be made. In the case of an RFX, after the event has been configured, the request is sent to the selected suppliers who can bid on the whole or part, decline to bid on the whole or part, or decline to bid because of incorrect or incomplete specifications on one or more line items. In the last case, the buyer is notified, and if the buyer agrees, he can suspend the RFX or e-Auction until corrections are made, and all suppliers are immediately notified of the event suspension. A supplier who accepts a purchase order, who is awarded an RFX, or who wins an auction is able to immediately enter delivery information into the system (which can generate e-invoice data for submission to the organization’s ERP) and when the product is received, a buyer can mark the product as received in the mini delivery module.
The catalog functionality is pretty much what you would expect and is comparable to most other e-Procurement platforms out there and the budget capability can be used to define budgets by user, project, and department and track them against requisitions and awards project-to-date and year-to-date. The built-in reporting is good, and Intengo even has canned reports by brands (which are great for retailers). Furthermore, Intengo can create and customize any report on any platform data that you want, but note that the platform is still missing a custom report builder. However, realizing this weakness, Intengo gives you the ability to export any and all data to Excel or to your ERP (so you can build your own reports using reporting tools you already have). So if you do full ERP integration (and use it for your Master Data), and you already have a best-of-breed reporting product sitting on top of that (and chances are you do), you can use that to build custom reports on your sourcing and procurement projects.
They have also made enhancements to their e-Sourcing platform. One of the most significant enhancements is their formulaic auction capability. This weighted auction capability allows a user to define an arbitrary weighting, composed of one or more factors, to every bid, on a lot and line-item level, that is used in determining the rankings. The user can define one-or-more weighting factors based upon quality, warranty, shipping, associated duties, etc. The categories can be (optionally) displayed to the suppliers who can choose the ones relevant to their bids (such as shipping, warranty included, etc.) and the weighting factors can then be applied behind the scene. In addition, during an auction, suppliers can also suggest substitutions for each line-item and lot, which a buyer can accept. (And, if necessary, the buyer can pause the auction, define appropriate formulae, and provide additional information to other suppliers who might also be capable of offering substitutions on different terms.)
Intengo is definitely an up-and-coming contender on the end-to-end Procurement scene in the European mid-market and another European e-Procurement provider to watch, especially since, like other European players, they have been internationalized and multi-language since day one on their integrated, single-solution, SaaS platform that allows them to create new instances virtually on-demand. While SI doesn’t expect them to cross the Atlantic for another couple of years, it does expect that the North America companies competing across the pond are going to be seeing a lot more of them on mainland Europe in the coming years.
Building and Ground Maintenance Outsourcing: A Maturing Cost Reduction Trend That Requires a Disciplined Approach
Today’s post is from Howard Gutman, a Manager in the Hackett Group’s Strategy and Operations Practice who consults to Fortune 1000 clients in operations improvement, sourcing and procurement, supply chain, and cost optimization. He was previously associated with MMG, KPMG, and PWC PRTM.
Many companies currently have their building and ground maintenance function (e.g. security, janitorial, and HVAC) managed by their own employees and/or a set of local suppliers for individual offices/ manufacturing sites. However, the success of companies such as AT&T and BMW, who have outsourced their building and ground maintenance function to integrated facilities management firms such as Jones Lang LaSalle and ABM, has caused many companies to question whether they should change their approach to the building and ground maintenance (BGM) function. Based on our recent client work, the outsourcing of BGM is an increasingly maturing trend across several industries but it requires a disciplined approach to develop an understanding of a company’s current demand and specifications in order to maximize the overall savings opportunity.
Before a company can consider outsourcing this function, a company should utilize a disciplined approach to understand demand for BGM by collecting the following information:
- Number of building sites;
- Basic information about each site (e.g., address information, total square footage, building population, number of bathrooms, outdoor square footage);
- Total spend for each major building and ground maintenance category by site (e.g. janitorial, HVAC, and environmental services).
Once this basic understanding of a company’s demand is established, a company must work with their operational leads to gather detailed specifications for each of their BGM services (e.g., frequency and requirement for HVAC maintenance at each site). After the development of the demand set and specifications, a company can pursue a strategy of outsourcing this function as the information mentioned above is essential for any RFP process involving integrated facilities management companies.
Two recent clients utilized the above approach to outsource their BGM function but each had initial concerns about outsourcing this function due to business culture and regulatory reasons.
Our first client, a Fortune 500 telecommunications company, liked the operational benefits of moving to a single integrated building provider, which includes centralized reporting and 24-7 support. However, they had concerns about regulatory issues such as maintaining continuous 911 service at rural locations. Through the RFP process, our client discovered that all of its major competitors had moved to an outsourced BGM solution, particularly at their rural locations.
Our second client, in the manufacturing space, had concerns about moving control of building management from their plant managers to an outside building and ground maintenance provider. Through the RFP process, it discovered that many of its competitors had moved to integrated facilities management companies who were deeply experienced in the manufacturing space.
The results of these two projects are projected to result in cost savings of 10% to 12.5% over the next two years along with increased maintenance standards and visibility into building issues through 24/7 online reporting. However, the main benefit for these organizations was that they could better focus on their core business functions, while delivering continuous savings through a disciplined approach for outsourcing BGM that has already been implemented by their peers.
Thanks, Howard for some insight into this often overlooked spend category!