Category Archives: Best Practices

If You Are Using a 3PL, Should You Focus on Outcome-Based Pricing?

Yesterday we discussed whether or not you should hedge your transportation costs, given this recent article in Canadian Transportation & Logistics (CTL) that found “global shipping lines grapple with plunging rates, overcapacity, and faltering recover”. Today we discuss another recent Canadian Transportation & Logistics article on “why it pays to focus on outcomes rather than transactions in procuring supply chain services”.

While an outcome-based focus is starting to take hold in some leading Supply Management organizations in their strategic sourcing processes, it’s often focussed on more traditional services where outcomes are easily defined and well understood by the organization. For example, procurement back-office functions where it’s all about throughput improvement (in terms of invoices processed), customer service (where it’s all about trouble-ticket resolution), and preventative maintenance (where it’s all about reducing downtime).

But back-office, customer service, and system up-time are not the only things that can be measured as outcomes. So can 3PL. As per the CTL on global shipping challenges, only 56% of containers delivered on time globally. Fifty-six percent! For those of you going for the perfect order, that’s 44% of your orders that rely on globally sourced products that won’t be perfect as of day one! (That’s why Maersk launched its Daily Maersk service in late October of 2011 which, with daily cut-off and built-in safety margins, allows it to guarantee virtually total reliability between select ports in Asia and Europe.)

Of course, this will require a shift in mindset in both buyers and 3PLs, but if both parties are willing to share greater risks, both parties could reap greater rewards. Current trends seem to indicate that. For example, by focussing on outcomes, Microsoft saved $30 Million by outsourcing its procure-to-pay operation to Accenture One, which doubled profit by focussing on value add activities. And Proctor & Gamble saved $1 Million in the first year of outsourcing $70 Million of facility management to Jones Lang LaSalle.

When the 3PL focusses on process and productivity improvement, and not price reduction, the efficiencies that fall out will most likely lead to cost reductions in the long term. For example, just getting the on-time delivery rate to 94% from 56% will likely decrease expediting costs 86%. And reducing “empty miles” will reduce costs (and likely speed up delivery time-frames as well, shortening lead times).

Some Takeaways from the E2Open sponsored SCM World Collaborative Execution Study

SCM World recently released a study on “Collaborative Execution” (defined as two or more parties working together to improve supply chain performance by continuously solving real problems with better information), focussed on Speed, Innovation and Profitability, overseen by Kevin O’Marah, and sponsored by E2Open that had some rather interesting, and in a few cases, surprising results. First off:

For suppliers, collaboration is primarily a means by which their customers share demand information, with 73% strongly agreeing this is a key aspect of collaboration.

For buyers, an overwhelming 83% believe collaboration revolves around the supplier sharing availability information (e.g. capacity, lead times, etc.).

In other words, both sides agree that collaboration centres on information sharing and, furthermore, the study also found that,
both sides need visibility and want a dedicated problem solver.

This means that the primary barrier to collaboration between most supply chain partners is the fact that companies struggle to share information effectively, with 54% seeing lack of data visibility across trading partners as a perennial problem. Furthermore, the next biggest barrier was speed of issue resolution, with almost 50% agreeing that this was a barrier to effective collaboration. (In addition, 92% agree that quick problem resolution is part of good collaboration.)

But the most surprising result of the survey was that trust, governance, and benefit sharing were not the biggest barriers to collaboration, as commonly suggested, but the ability to connect trading partner information flow, insure quality of information, and synchronize that information for quick problem solving. (For example, almost one half of respondents felt granularity of data was a problem, speaking to the quality issue, and almost one half of respondents saw timeliness of information as a problem.) This says that, for the most part, it is not lack of desire, trust, or willingness to collaborate that is the problem, but a lack of technology to enable collaboration. (And this is a shame, considering that such technology has existed in more than adequate form for at least five years now for even the largest of multi-nationals with the most complex supply networks. It may take some effort to get used to some of the technology, which is only now maturing on the usability front in some cases, but how much of a barrier is it really to spend a few days learning a technology that is going to cut your issue resolution time in half and decrease your risk substantially?)

Given that:

  • collaborative relationships were more cost effective,
    55% of respondents agree
  • good collaboration minimizes risk, and
    75% of respondents agree
  • learning is faster in a collaborative environment
    70% of respondents conclude that the rate of leaning increases by at least one-and-a-half times

Acquiring the technology that your organization needs to take collaboration with your trading partners to the next level should be a no-brainer. (Especially since the last finding means that any operational metric targeted such as inventory days, total landed cost, cash to cash cycle time can be expected to improve one and a half times as quickly as would be the case without collaborative execution. Thus, any appropriate technology acquisition is going to give you a very quick ROI.)

The only other point of interest was the not-so-surprising result that management by exception it seems is still not part of a “truly collaborative” trading partner relationship for a substantial number of companies. This would indicate that collaboration, even among market leaders, is still not very mature. In a mature relationship, each party trusts the other to do what they do best and only gets involved when a deviation is detected or an idea is devised to improve the process or product. But still, it’s nice to know that both buyers and sellers do not see trust as a barrier to collaborating for mutual gain.

Procurement Game Plan: A Review Part III.2

Charles Dominick of Next Level Purchasing and Soheila R. Lunney of Lunney Advisory Group recently released The Procurement Game Plan: Winning Strategies and Techniques for Supply Management Professionals. So far, in our review, we’ve covered the Purchasing Professional’s 10 Commandments, organizational role, Supply Management strategy, talent, social responsibility, strategic sourcing, supplier qualification, negotiation, and supplier relationship management. This post, which continues our review of Part III, dives into procurement performance — measurement and methodology.

If you do not have a solid way of measuring procurement performance, you do not know how well you are doing or, more importantly, how you can improve. If you don’t measure performance, you can be guaranteed that performance, inside and outside your organization, will not be what you expect, and possibly not even to the minimum levels that you contracted for! You’ll have no way of knowing if your supplier understands your expectations, cares, or if your buyers are keeping up their end of the bargain (and buying on contract).

As a result you should keep a scorecard that addresses, at a minimum, the six classifications of procurement impact identified by the authors:

  1. True Expense Reduction / Cost Savings
    When you obtain a true cost reduction and hold volume requirements steady, this is a huge win that is easily understood by all.
  2. Price Reductions that Offset Volume Increases
    If volume requirements increase 20%, chances are total spend is going to go up, but if you negotiated good price reductions, the organization is still saving on a unit basis and the organization must get credit for this.
  3. Expense Reductions through Negotiation
    If the organization did not buy a product or service under contract in the past, but started buying such product or service under contract, then any cost reduction against average historical unit pricing is a savings. If the organization did not previously buy the product or service, then any cost reduction against a market average is a saving (as that is what the organization would be likely to pay, at a minimum, without Procurement’s involvement).
  4. Volatile Commodity Price Reductions Against Market(-Based) Pricing
    There are some commodities, such as crude oil (where the price is essentially set by Wall Street, as we explained in a recent post here on SI), where it is virtually impossible for an average Procurement Pro to reduce cost. Markets drive the prices, and there’s little a Procurement Pro can do. But if the average year-over-year increase is 25%, and the Procurement Pro manages to keep the year-over-year increase to 20%, that’s a win.
  5. Savings that could be obtained with Procurement Involvement
    If Procurement saved 1 Million on 10 Million of spend, that might not be much to an organization that spends 50 Million, but if Procurement was instead allowed to manage 80% of the organization’s spend instead of 20%, then, instead of reducing top-line costs by 2%, it could reduce top-line costs by 8%, and that is a significant contribution that will carry straight to the bottom line [(c) Robert Rudzki]! And if Procurement identifies any areas where it can exceed the average organizational savings percentage, they should be clearly communicated.
  6. Price Increases Incurred
    If Procurement only reports the good, and hides the bad (which will happen from time to time as that Black Swan, who makes Hannibal look like a juvie in comparison, is one nasty little bugger), then it is risking having its reputation ruined when someone in the finance office, bitter about the recognition Procurement is receiving, digs where you don’t want him too. Report the bad. If Procurement is doing its job well, this number is going to be dwarfed by the other numbers and the total-savings-across-the-board calculation is still going to make Procurement look like a star.

The chapter does a great job of identifying, and explaining, the appropriate cost savings formulae you will need to report the above; explaining what a financial performance analysis is; and explaining some key financial terms (such as EPS, EBITDA, and ROI); but the only other section I wish to point out is the section on measuring total team performance that outlines some common mistakes that should be avoided in your reporting:

  • Cost Savings as the Lone Metric
    The first reaction of a skeptic will be what are you trying to hide? As every organization contains a number of skeptics, don’t do this.
  • Not Using Net Cost Savings as Metric
    It’s not how much you negotiate, but how much you capture. That’s why SRM/SPM and spend monitoring (as described in the 100%-free no-registration-required eBook on Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide) is so vital!
  • Not Taking Markets into Account When Setting Goals
    If raw material costs for steel went up 30% and your product is 60% steel, then your raw product costs have shot up 18% and a 10% year-over-year cost reduction ain’t gonna happen. Don’t expect it!

Remember, it’s all about cost savings credibility. If you have it, your Supply Management organization will get the respect it deserves!

Procurement Game Plan: A Review Part III.1

Charles Dominick of Next Level Purchasing and Soheila R. Lunney of Lunney Advisory Group recently released The Procurement Game Plan: Winning Strategies and Techniques for Supply Management Professionals. In our first post, we set the stage with The Purchasing Professional’s 10 Commandments. In our second post, we covered the first four chapters of the book that discuss organizational role, supply management strategy, talent, and social responsibility — the stage that a modern supply management professional has to act upon. In our third post, we continued our detailed review with a discussion of the chapters on strategic sourcing and supplier qualification. Then, in our last few posts, we discussed the chapters on negotiation. This post begins our discussion of managing supplier relationships, measuring performance, and improving performance, which will conclude our review of The Procurement Game Plan: Winning Strategies and Techniques for Supply Management Professionals.

The chapter on managing supplier relationships covers a lot of material, but the most important point that it covers is the Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) golden rule: when something goes wrong, blame yourself first. If the supplier was properly vetted, the contract appropriately defined, and the relationship properly managed, the only thing that should cause you a problem is an act of god, an act of nature, or an act of war. Unless something happens that would allow a supplier to invoke force majeure, nothing significant should go wrong. If it does, it is (due to a previous) error on your part. As the authors state do not blame the supplier until you’ve thoroughly investigated the problem and are absolutely sure that the problem was the fault of the supplier because many times the the problem is … the fault of your own organization. (And even if it isn’t, why did you select a supplier who would be so lax? That’s your fault!)

Furthermore, if you consider the primary reasons that most relationships falter, you’ll see that they are all your fault!

  • Unclear Expectations
    Often the performance that you expect is different than what the supplier understands is required. Expectations should be clearly defined with respect to metrics, written down, and discussed with every supplier. There should be no doubt in your mind that the supplier understands what is good behaviour and what is bad behaviour. Failure to insure that this level of understanding is reached is your fault.
  • Opportunistic Behaviour
    There is a certain amount of trust involved in a buy-sell relationship and if the buyer attempts to take advantage of every issue by demanding a discount or other concession (before the problem is thoroughly investigated and the source clearly identified), the supplier will lose their interest in committing itself to help the buyer succeed. Attempting to take advantage of every issue, especially when the cause is likely a lack of expectation setting or supplier management, is your fault.
  • Poor Selection Methodology
    If you ended up with a poor supplier, then the selection process was flawed. Guess what, that’s your fault too!

Now, sometimes it will be the supplier’s fault. Every now and again the shop floor will not have the dedication or interest in pleasing you that your counterpart has, or an executive, stuck between a rock and a hard place when he realizes that the organization overcommitted a certain product or for a certain time window, will decide that you are going to get the short straw, but if you’ve done everything right, this will be the exception and not the norm. And both cases are easily corrected a supplier that wants your business. A heart-to-heart will be had in the first instance (and the people responsible will shape up or be shipped out) and refunds or other concessions will be offered in the second. And the supplier will work with you to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

And if you’ve down your job right, and you find yourself in a situation where a supplier decides not to perform up to expectations and not do anything about it, you already have a multi-stage back up, risk mitigation, and/or disaster recovery plan to fall back on. Starting with emergency meetings and site visits with your counterpart and/or senior management, through third party assistance (such as arbitration or mediation), through termination and a switch to your backup supplier, the recovery strategy and process will be well-documented and ready to spring into action.

The chapter does a great job of covering your options for rationalizing the supply base if things do fall apart, identifying cost reduction opportunities within your current supply chain if they don’t, and the cornerstones of good SRM, which is critical if you want a true supplier alliance, but the only other section we’re going to cover is on minimizing leakage. Once a contract is effected it has to be monitored, carefully, or leakage (which will occur no matter what you do) will increase from a slow drip to a gushing waterfall.

Minimizing leakage in an average organization is, fortunately, pretty straight forward. As the authors note, you:

  • Monitor expenditures regularly
    The biggest barrier to leakage (which can take many forms but typically takes the forms of off-contract maverick buying, over-invoicing, or over-payment) is a watchful eye. Like the watched pot that never wants to boil, a buyer is more likely to stick to a contract when being watched, a supplier is more likely to double check its invoices if being watched, and an accounts payable clerk is more likely to check for duplicate invoices or payments. The simple act of watching (followed by a regular report to senior management on who’s not doing their job) can often cut leakage from 40% to 10%. (And for some great ideas on how to find leakage, why not download the 100%-free no-registration-required eBook on Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide?)
  • Celebrate and Publicize Success
    Securing an interview with a trade publication or leading blog and having your stakeholders participate not only gives credit and builds ownership of the process, but it instills accountability. Who’s going to jeopardize a savings commitment when the CEO has seen it in a news report?
  • Involve Stakeholders
    In RFP evaluation, supplier survey scoring, and even contract monitoring. If stakeholders feel like they own the process, they are going to do their best to see that it is followed and the savings commitments reached. After all, if they are involved, they are going to share the credit for the success (and that’s ten times better than being blamed for failure, right?).

Our review will continue and discuss the final topics of the game plan — measuring performance, supporting technologies, and your strategy for procurement success.

Will Your e-Auction Be A Success? Or Will You End Up in Court?

 

As an April Fool’s joke, SupplyManagement.com ran a piece about how a ‘court battle looms over e-auction “error”‘ which discussed a fictional case in the UK High Court as a result of legal proceedings initiated by a Chinese business in an attempt to hold a supplier to a price submitted in an e-auction. According to the article, one independent consultant William Sommers (represented by the UK law firm Jester & Prank), said he was participating in an e-auction for project management services while working at home where he left his iPad alone for a few moments to answer the door. He claims that during that time his daughter grabbed the iPad (because she loves a bit of Angry Birds) and must have pressed something to place a bid on his behalf as he returned to the iPad to find a bid he couldn’t change. As a result, to honour the bid he would have had to offer his services for “almost nothing” for a three-month project and argues that the supplier, Hohhot Axle Industries, is being unreasonable in trying to hold him to an offer that was a “genuine mistake”.

While this article was a prank, the issue it discusses is all too real. As pointed out in this recent piece on ‘a genuine bargain or a genuine mistake’, (poorly designed) e-auction software makes it very easy for buyers to submit incorrect bids and, even worse, correct bids that the supplier might decide, after the heat of the auction is over, that it does not want to honour. What do you do when its time to sign the contract, after you’ve informed all of the other suppliers that they lost and won’t be getting your business, and the supplier tries to back out? Especially if you need the goods or services quickly?

Chances are you panic and pay more because not only were the other bids higher, but when you desperately have to scramble to find product quickly, suppliers will know they have the upper hand and won’t be as competitive as when they (believed) they had to compete for your business. You’re taking a loss. But can you recover it in court?

As the above article indicates, if one party makes an error that the other party should know is a genuine error, the offer, even if it is an implied contract, can be rendered void by the courts. In fact, if the court believes that the details or circumstances of the offer from one party are such that the other party should know that a genuine error has been made, or the council for the party can argue that the other party should have known that a genuine error has been made, that is enough to void an offer.

So what can you do to prevent this from happening? Take lots of precautions.

  1. Describe the auction process in detail.
    Describe end-to-end how the event is going to play out from the initial invitation, through the pre-event data collection and supplier qualification, to the actual auction and the final contract award. There should be no unknowns in the supplier’s mind.
  2. Define the rules and force a bidder to accept the rules.
    Describe the rules for participation, the process for bidding, and the terms and conditions associated with the contract award up-front and force the supplier to accept all of the rules, processes, and terms and conditions before they can participate in the event.
  3. Create a secure account for each individual authorized to use the system and force them to accept full responsibility for the account.
    Force each representative to assert that this is their account, they take full responsibility for it, no one else will be allowed to use it, and they take full responsibility for all offers made through the account.
  4. Use software with controls and make sure you use the controls.
    Not only should you force confirmations on bids to prevent “genuine mistakes”, but you should also put limits on how much lower a bid can be with respect to the current lowest bid (to minimize errors as a bid should not drop from 10,000 to 100, which would indicate either a decimal point error or a misunderstanding as to lot size) as well as an absolute floor that defines the minimum acceptable bid (as you should not accept a bid that you know is lower than the theoretical lowest cost based on your cost model and the maximum efficiency that is achievable).

While this may not be enough to guarantee that 100% of bids will have to be honoured, as you cannot always predict the results of a court case if an argument were to go to court, it certainly puts the odds in your favour and minimizes the chances of a supplier making a bid that the supplier would be uncomfortable in honouring (especially since you’d have a stronger case if it went to court).