Category Archives: Cost Reduction

It’s Time To Put An End to Business Spend Management!

Coupa may have built their Billion dollar business on it, but the time for Business Spend Management (BSM) is at an end!

Spend Management may have been the business strategy and philosophy that leaders practice and followers fail to understand according to THE PROPHET (who penned it two decades ago), but that was then, and this is now.

While spend management wasn’t supposed to be just cost management, but instead an incremental change that represents a new type of thinking, a way of taking integrated approaches to not just procurement, but all aspects of non-revenue generating operations and a way of thinking about your global supply chain strategy that would reduce costs, improve processes, and increase profits, that’s not what it became.

Spend Management became a fancy term for cost reduction (and, for the most part, that didn’t include cost avoidance), and even when optimization was used, the objective was always price. The majority of analytics focussed on spend, and even when process analytics were run, they were always framed in terms of cost and savings if automation was increased and/or process time decreased. Even multi-objective RFPs were primarily weighted on price, if they were weighted on anything else at all once basic supplier, product, and/or service requirements were met.

And now, in the age of AI (hype), all of the agentic / BS AI Employee offerings are focussed on offering you solutions to your Procurement problems that will reduce overall cost (base cost, human cost, processing cost, etc.). Cost, cost, cost.

But, for as long as it has existed, that’s never what Procurement was about. The goal might be to keep costs down, but the point of Procurement is the acquisition of a good or service. Supply, NOT Spend. Now, it’s true that the spend has to be less than what an individual would pay on his or her own to acquire the product or service or, as per Coase, there’s no reason for the business to exist, but if the business can’t acquire any products or service to allow them to offer a product or service for sale, the spend doesn’t matter.

That’s why BSM (where the “B” doesn’t necessarily mean “Business”) needs to end. It’s time to return to supply management, with guarantee of supply (not minimization of spend) at the forefront. This means a focus on risk minimization, production management, logistics management, trade management, and other variables that contribute to assurance of supply (and prevention of disruption). Costs can only be optimized once all of these other factors are taken care of.

This is the only way to procure in today’s volatile times, and, moreover, the only way to control cost. Real spend management is not just minimizing unit costs, transportation costs, and other purchase prices, but reducing operational costs across the board. You’re not reducing costs if the organization has to buy 30% off of contract because of delays, disruptions, and defects. And you’re definitely not reducing costs if you have to constantly expedite shipments, buy from alternate sources of supply at higher prices, or lose considerable revenue due to stock outs while paying for warehouse space / retail space.

It’s optimizing human intelligence against dumb automation to make sure processes are optimized, exceptions are quickly processed, risks mitigated to the extent possible, and disruptions detected and addressed as soon as they arise.

It’s Supply Management. (Not Spend Management.)

Cost Reduction … it Starts With Cost Increase

It used to be cost reduction, which was focussed on cost cutting, started with the one-trick pony of cost cutting by any means necessary, which typically took the form of e-Auctions, RFPs to new suppliers, and GPOs that could aggregate and leverage huge volumes — all tricks that are rearing their ugly heads again with the rapidly rising costs thanks to inflation, tariffs, and global instability.

They all work just fine in the short term, but they all come back to bite you in the backside in the long term. Here’s why:

  • e-Auctions: find savings by squeezing margins, and you can only take those out once, and once inflation comes back, costs go up
  • RFPs: designed just to find the absolute lowest price attracts suppliers who cut corners, underpay their staff, and offer no service while alienating your current, more trustworthy, suppliers
  • GPOs: can aggregate volumes and lower prices, but then you are dependent on them, and paying their markup … forever

None of these is the long term answer.

When we first started discussing cost reduction two decades ago, the key methods we focussed on were:

  • strategic supplier relationships and customer of choice: so that they put the effort into being your supplier of choice and finding their own ways to keep costs down (streamlined operations, better raw material sourcing, etc.)
  • supplier investment and development: if the supplier is smaller, or not as advanced, they’ll only do so much on their own, so your efforts to invest, improve, and guide them (through early payments, low-cost new line financing, etc.) could greatly lower your costs over a multi-year engagement
  • strategic sourcing decision optimization: where you did a multi-objective optimization that took all of the cost factors (unit, transportation, warranty, service, waste etc.) into account as well as risk (that could cause “savings” to evaporate over night) and quantitative assessments of other key factors

And those are all good techniques in (semi) normal times. But these are not (semi) normal times. These are almost unprecedented times. Between natural disasters, geo-political conflicts and wars, and terrorism, we are dealing with unprecedented simultaneous reductions and closures of major maritime shipping lanes (the Panama Canal, the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz), unstable (and rapidly escalating) fuel costs, regular supplier and carrier failures, unpredictable crop and raw material availability, etc. all at the same time. Old friends becoming foes, or at least frenemies; friend-shoring, near-shoring, and home-shoring finally gaining ground (despite being promoted and the right answer for decades); and supply chains being swapped whenever possible.

We’re in times where these techniques, while still good, can’t always address all of the situations. Plus, if you’re constantly adapting to what’s available now, versus focussing on what you should be building, you’ll be in a constant, unstable, state of affairs, caught off guard with every flux, and constantly on the brink of ruin.

You need to stop working sourcing event to sourcing event, procurement to procurement, and disruption to disruption and start working on transforming your supply chain to a more resilient long term supply chain. This will require identifying which safe countries and regions (likely to have long term geo-political and trade stability with your home and/or destination countries) you should be doing business with, where solid supply bases could be, and how you could construct a real supply chain from the source countries to the destination countries that don’t depend on unstable source points.

Then you have to engage the carriers, find partners to help you manage the export and import requirements and take advantage of FTZs (free trade zones), build or acquire intermediate warehouses and cross-docks, and be ready for trade with the local suppliers. Those will typically include multiple suppliers you are not currently working with, and they may need to upgrade their production lines, operations, services, etc. to serve you to your level of expectation. This will incur costs that your suppliers and partners will need to incur, which will need to be passed onto you. Which means, in the short-to-mid-term, your costs will increase. But if you design the right, stable, supply chain networks that you can use for years (or decades), develop the right suppliers, and maintain volumes, as operations improve, up-front costs get amortized, and economies of scale get optimized, costs will go down, and with long-term agreements, over multiple years, your company will see previously unrealized savings while your peers see their costs go through the roof.

So if you want to save money, you better be prepared to spend.

Supply Chain 2026 or Supply Chain 2008? Part I

Continuing on our “the more things change, the more things stay the same” theme, back in 2008, the Supply Chain Digest published an article on Key Trends Impacting Supply Chain Management and Logistics for 2008 where it asked a number of leading academics and practitioners what they saw coming. (Their responses are summarized in this SI post.)

Nine (9) experts weighed in and provided 24 thoughts on what they saw coming in 2008. Those thoughts more-or-less fell into seven themes, and for the most part, those themes are the same themes today. Moreover, the specific concepts addressed are more-or-less the concepts being addressed today. Let’s take them theme by theme.

Delivered Cost

Four (4) of the nine (9) experts centered on cost as a core theme and stated that they believed:

  • total delivered cost will take hold as a concept
  • The required cross-functional focus needed to reduce costs will not get its due in most organizations
  • The firms that recognize that a fresh approach focussed on value, cash flow, and light, non-intrusive, web-service-based, value-add software components that work with existing solutions and technologies will be the ones that make progress
  • There will be an extensive focus on controlling oil and logistics costs
  • Businesses will start to understand that supply chain efficiency is linked to price.

Total delivered cost is still a major theme today with the tariff mania, the steep price hikes in certain categories and shipping with the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz issues, and the increasingly price-sensitive consumer economy that is cash strapped as a result of so many essentials skyrocketing in price that is putting extra pressure on manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to keep costs down across the board.

Furthermore, in organizations that have already implemented reasonably modern procurement, logistics, and supply chain solutions, and achieved some process and cost savings, the only way they are going to get the next level of savings is with cross-functional coordination — reducing overstock and stock-outs; streamlining shop-floor procurement (from central warehouses and suppliers) with automation across manufacturing, logistics, supply chain, and procurement; etc.

The best results always involve identifying where automation and augmented intelligence can increase process efficiency and help identify more savings.

Oil and logistics costs are again at the forefront.

Finally, businesses have always known that supply chain efficiency is always linked to price. Business exists for Procurement, and it only continues to exist if it is more efficient in Procurement than individuals acting on their own.

Strategy/Models

Four (4) of the nine (9) experts also centered on cost as a core theme and stated that they believed:

  • Strategy will become more important
  • Companies will re-examine their strategic supply chain design decisions with regards to outsourcing
  • Software and Service Provider Business Models will Continue to Change
  • SCM organizations will have to focus more time and effort on tactical and operational issues driven by economic and competitive pressures

Strategy is becoming more important by the day as the rate of man-made disasters exceeds even natural ones, which have increased five fold over the last couple of decades. Especially with an AI-Hype induced market crash coming.

As a result of the tariff mania, companies are finally reconsidering their outsourcing and seriously looking for friendly sourcing, near sourcing, and home sourcing options where they have the opportunity to do so. For complex electronics or manufactured components that can only be produced in a few factories in the world, companies don’t have any choice but to outsource for those components but they are rethinking where final production takes place and then importing just what they need into select destinations.

The reality is that the fundamental capabilities of the vast majority of today’s software offerings are not that much different than the fundamental capabilities of the same software 20 years ago. The only difference: true multi-tenant cloud SaaS, hundreds of features you probably don’t use, greatly improved user interfaces, and more data to power them. Not counting Gen-AI, which is not reliable anyway, earlier versions of every other AI tech existed 20 years ago. And maybe the processing power wasn’t available to the average user or corporation, but the tech was there. However, most business apps don’t need AI, and all of the core procurement, supply chain, logistics, production, etc. functionality was there 20 years ago. Integration wasn’t out of the box, sometimes took forever to get basic data transfer between systems, and often happened just in time for a system upgrade. And the workflows were often so clunky it would take days to do what should take about an hour. Thus, since no one wants to buy the same stuff over and over, you need to change the business model to make it happen. Also, most consultants sell the same playbook for at least a decade, so they need to change the business model to hook you over and over.

The constant changing economic landscape as a result of tariff mania, the intermittent availability of straits and canals that change on a daily basis, the sanction wars, and other constant turmoil is forcing tactical and operational issues driven by economic pressure to the forefront.

Software Acquisition Insider Tips 2026 Part VI

It’s been 17 years since SI published its first major series on generic insider tips back in 2009 where we gave you a lot of advice that more-or-less still stands today if you want to safely acquire software. In our preamble, we overviewed what those 11 pieces of advice were then, and summarized the 6 major difference that affect how you apply that advice today so you can continue to make the right decisions when acquiring software in the age of AI Hype and exaggerated I2O claims. In the last four parts we addressed the first eight pieces of advice and how they have evolved over the years. Today, we conclude.

Separate software from service

Seventeen years ago we wrote:

Many software products aren’t really software products at all. In other words, there is some incantation that has to be performed by the software vendor, in the form of services, configuration, or other magic, on a regular basis, to keep the software running. In this case, you haven’t bought software, you’ve bought software plus services. What’s even worse is that you’ve single-sourced it. If the vendor goes broke, or can’t deliver, you have no options.

This is still a reality with many products, and, even worse, in the age of AI-based “agentic” offerings, they only keep working if the vendor is constantly monitoring, maintaining, upgrading, retraining, correcting exceptions and errors behind the scenes that you don’t see, etc. There’s more hidden services than ever. That, combined with the escalating token costs, is why they have to sell you on “outcomes” because they can’t charge SaaS fees and survive. (And that’s why outcomes is a dirty word. Just remember freedom of speech means that they can say anything they want, even if it’s not true, but that you have the right to ascertain the truth and demand that word never be used again in their RFP responses! [As well as “AI”.])

Good software is very affordable today. If it’s too expensive, it’s either relying too much on experimental AI that doesn’t work, stuffed full of features you don’t need, or hiding services behind the scenes you don’t want to be paying for.

Monitor the market

This isn’t 20 years ago where there were very few price benchmarks beyond what you could collect from an RFP and a few general price ranges from your favourite consulting firm that were wider than an average football field, this is now where there are dozens of platforms that monitor SaaS spending and a few big consultancies that specialize in not only monitoring and pricing how low a vendor will go, but breaking apart their combined bids into individual SKUS because they have hundreds of data points to compare against as they have been collecting that data for years as they negotiated on behalf of their clients. If you do the research, you should know exactly how much each vendor will charge, on average, for the solution you are looking at for an organization of your size, what the price trends are, when they make the best deals, and what the best pressure points are. If you don’t, you shouldn’t be making major 6, 7, and even 8 (when you consider lifetime) figure software acquisitions. Period. Market monitoring is a must!

Skip the mind games

Abruptly end a meeting mid-stream to make a point? Make the salesman sweat at quarter-end to squeeze a few extra discount points? Scream emotionally that they are price gouging and you’re going to not only report them to the Better Business Bureau but tell all your friends in the local Procurement Association? Threaten to use Klod or Chat J’ai Pété to build it yourself? Lie and say you can make do with your current system for another quarter if you can’t come to a deal or just select any random competitor at DPW?

Sure you could use these techniques to try to get a better deal using an antagonistic wild west negotiation philosophy, but at the end of the day, it will cost you more than you save because even if the rep caves (because the rep knows if he doesn’t close something, he’s the next rep walked out the door by the investors to make a point), how incentivized is the rep, and the vendor as a whole, going to be in helping you to succeed? Especially if their profit margin is close to 0 in a best case situation? Answer: not very. They will do the absolute minimum to meet their contractual requirement, and then take the phone off the hook, tell the chatbot AI to infinitely loop you when you try to contact support, and, when there is an actual bug, make sure you are last in the queue to get serviced, waiting until the last minute of the SLA to do it

Focus on the value you are getting, a price point based on real market data and intelligence that they should be able to match (and make a fair margin while actively supporting you to meet the ROI metrics they promise), and delayed payments until the module is actually live and users actually onboarded before you start paying for it. (In other words, if you buy six modules, but only two are available day one, two more won’t be available for 90 days, and two more for 180 days, you don’t pay the full license fee until all modules are live AND all users set up. And implementation/integration payments are tied to milestone completion.) That’s way more effective.

Now, as always, there are a lot more tips and advice we could give, but these are the biggies. If you want more details, dig deep in the archives. Or, you can contact <font=black>the doctor for an engagement.