Category Archives: Cost Reduction

If a Deal Is Too Good To Be True, IT IS!

This is just as true in technology and services as it is in products. If you get four bids for a new technology platform and / or (integrated) services package and three are plus or minus 20% and one is 1/3 of the price, I guarantee that lowball bid is too good to be true. And if you did your homework, you’d instantly know it and disqualify it.

You buy a product or service because it’s cheaper to buy than to build or perform it in house. However, that product or service still has a cost to the vendor, in terms of manpower and resources — costs the vendor has to meet in order to deliver you a quality product or service. If the vendor doesn’t cover these costs, and make a fair profit, one of two things is going to happen — the vendor is going to go out of business trying to serve you at an unsustainable level or the vendor is going to deliver a significantly inferior product or service to stay afloat.

I’m reminding you of this because a number of companies have not only been looking for new solutions now that we’re into a slow recovery, but because a number of companies, desperate to reduce costs, have been rebidding everything under the organizational umbrella, including the supply management platform(s) and service contracts. And in doing so, many of them have been getting unbelievably low bids from a handful of vendors who are desperate to win (new) market share — and the companies are seriously considering these bids. These bids are unbelievable for a reason — they’re not real. They’re up front costs, and as soon as you sign on the dotted line, you’re going to be hit with “change fees”, “service costs”, “upgrade fees”, etc. if you want the same level of service being offered by the competition, who are all in the same ballpark at sustainable bids. Or, even worse, the vendor is just going to give you the platform or an initial spending report, and then disappear until renewal time because the cost only covers platform support, not project or customer support. Or, and this is the worst situation of all, the vendor is trying to build a new business (in a new vertical) and thinks it can use you as a marquis customer to attract new customers, who it will overcharge to make up for the loss on you. If it works, you’re in luck, but the vast majority of the time what happens is that either the vendor fails to deliver, because they didn’t understand the true success requirements or they didn’t understand how much it would cost and how long it would take to make you a success, and then shuts down the business. If you’re lucky, they just shut down the vertical and you get to keep using the platform until you can find a new vendor. If you’re, not, the whole vendor goes tits up and you’re left holding the empty bag.

The worst part is that every month, if not every week, I hear of yet another company who signs on the dotted line with one of these vendors offering “unbelievable” deals that “can’t be matched” — and, even worse, the company is one that should know better (because there are success stories that illustrate it understands many of the precepts of good supply management). Especially when it’s so easy-peasy to determine if a bid is reasonable or not.

It’s easy to determine a reasonable range for a (bundled) technology platform (and /) or service. All you have to do is build a should cost model. Let’s say you’re buying a SaaS e-Procurement platform and want regular project management support, best-practice training, and custom integration to your in-house technology platform. Then you know the vendor will have, at least, the following costs:

  • Platform Delivery & Maintenance
  • Account & Project Management Personnel
  • Development Personnel

If the SaaS license will require 1/50th of their data centre resources, then the base overhead to support you will be 1/50th of their data centre and support team costs. If you require about 20 hours a week of account and project management support and training, then you will require half of a senior resource who has expertise in your industry and categories. If the custom integration is expected to take two man years, than you will need the equivalent of two developers on the vendor’s staff dedicated to you.

Now, if the average cost to maintain a small data centre, or rent part of a data centre, that will support 50 similar-sized enterprise clients is 3M, then you can quickly estimate that it will cost the vendor 60K (+- 10K for a margin of error) just to have you on the books, before it lifts a finger. If the senior resource required to support you on your projects is a 120K to 150K resource, then it will cost the vendor 60K to 75K to dedicate this resource to you half of the time. And if the average developer with the necessary skills is going for 70K to 90K, that’s another 140K to 180K that the vendor needs to outlay to support you. Then, there’s the vendor’s cost of sale, which, depending on commissions structures and expenses, is probably in the 15% to 25% range, and the need for the vendor to make a fair profit, say 10% to 15%, to keep investors happy. If you add it all up, you get:

Cost $ Range
Platform Delivery & Maintenance 050K to 070K
Account & Project Management Personnel 060K to 075K
Development Personnel 140K to 180K
Subtotal 250K to 325K
Cost of Sale 040K to 070K
Profit 025K to 050K
Total 315K to 445K

This tells you that any bids you get in and around the 315K to 445K range are reasonable, that if you get any bids that are more than 600K, the vendor either doesn’t understand what you want or is trying to rip you off (up front), and that if you get any bids less than 250K, either the vendor is planning to not support you to the level you need to be supported, the vendor is planning to make it up later with “change fees” and “service fees” when you’re locked in to a long term contract and held captive, or the vendor is looking to make a poster child out of you and take unfair advantage of the relationship (and then leave you holding the empty bag if things go south).

Regardless of why the vendor gave you the unbelievable bid, one thing is clear. If you accept it, you will get screwed.

How Much Can A Small Enterprise Really Save With Just In Time Inventory?

A recent article on “wringing cost out of the supply chain” in World Trade Magazine suggested that carrying too much inventory can lead to a significant hit on the balance sheet for a SME and that SMEs should use a JIT inventory strategy to lower costs. And while I agree that this is a good strategy for MEs and LEs, I’m not convinced this is always the case for SEs with less than 100 Million in revenues.

First of all, as the article notes, SMEs often struggle to come up with the resources for payroll, much less [the resources to] develop intricate supply chain models, optimize inventory levels, and calculate their carrying costs. Unless the savings are significant, they will quickly be eaten up by the additional manpower needed to design, execute, monitor, correct, and maintain the JIT strategy.

Secondly, they will likely need help at first. And while this could come from a logistics provider, this too will come at a cost. Either the logistics provider will assign a resource to manage the JIT strategy for the SE and up their rates to cover the cost of the resource assigned to manage the JIT strategy, or the provider will simply store inventory on behalf of the SE in shared warehousing, which still increase the logistics cost. So even though some savings may be found, they won’t be as significant as one might expect. Furthermore, the logistics provider is not likely to be in a position to sense demand changes and this could increase the possibility of a costly, and even business threatening, stock-out. Since most SEs operate on (relatively) slim profit margins, a stock-out on a key product line could not only cost revenue, but customers vital to business success.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the expected savings can be wiped out by a single, short-term, supply disruption. Consider the example presented in the article for a 40M company. After all is said and done, the reduction in net income before taxes is a mere 47,000! That’s an expected reduction of only 0.1%! A single volcano erupting, port going on strike, or political breakdown that causes a one-week delay in your next order and that projected savings is dwarfed by the magnitude of the loss the SE will be facing. The extra 50K is now an insurance payment.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think JIT is right for SEs. Good inventory management with reasonably low safety stocks in shared low-cost warehousing, certainly. But lean? I’m not sure the SE can afford it!

High-Definition Sourcing: Category Excellence Moves to the Next Level


Today’s guest post is from Paul Martyn, Vice President of Marketing for Bravo Solution.
Paul can be reached at p <dot> martyn <at> bravosolution <dot> com.

the doctor — along with many others — has been advocating for “next-generation sourcing” for some time. I couldn’t agree more that modern supply management organizations must take sourcing practices to the next level if they are going to continue to distill value from the discipline and practice.

But like most New Year’s Resolutions, while the aspiration to improve may be great, the effort may be too much for even the most committed. I see this a lot, especially when it comes the challenges of sourcing strategic, complex categories. Not without reason of course, but more and more I also see that the benefits of mastering the art of sourcing these challenging categories far outweigh the difficulties of the actual process.

Strategic categories mean different things to different businesses. For one company, the category may be transportation; for another, packaging material. The common denominator: the business can’t succeed without it, and can’t afford to over-pay for it.

To make decisions based on the most strategic objectives of the business, sourcing teams need to integrate many dimensions of information from areas well outside their domains. For example, if non-price factors like diversity or sustainability are part of the company’s corporate social responsibility initiative, those factors can — and should — be part of sourcing strategies.

As a result, the volume and the sheer variability of the information render common e-sourcing tools or Excel spreadsheets useless for collecting and evaluating proposals. That’s where high-definition sourcing — which combines technology, expertise and process — delivers the goods at the lowest total landed cost, and aligned with the greater organizational strategy.

So how do you know if high-definition sourcing can turn even the most complex categories into real value for your organization? There are generally three scenarios where the opportunity to apply this discipline will help you capture meaningful and sustainable savings

  1. The category leader is frustrated with traditional sourcing techniques
  2. The category is avoided by the faint of heart
  3. Sourcing alone will not deliver the value

Sound familiar? Odds are good that at least one of these reflects what’s happening in your organization. Regardless of which situation you face, there are immediate opportunities to be gained with high-definition sourcing

  • Use technology to design and execute more sophisticated proposal collection and analysis, including the ability to use “what-if” scenarios.
  • Build supplier performance monitoring and triggers for re-evaluating supplier selection into your category management solution
  • Partner with suppliers to drive costs out of the system and strike the perfect balance between suppliers’ pricing and capabilities with buyer business constraints and preferences
  • Tap domain and process experts to bring market and industry best practices to bear on your own sourcing process

The results will be well worth it. Best-in-class companies make the connection between complex categories and the business’ charter. Lowering initial costs is a given. More importantly, these leaders make better decisions based on capabilities and price and secure meaningful — and sustainable — savings.

Thanks, Paul!

A Great Case Study on Spend Analytics in Healthcare

Health Leaders Media recently ran a great study on Spend Analytics that is a must read for any (health care) organization that doubts the savings opportunities that a good spend analysis tool can discover. In “elevating the spend analysis” function, the author clarifies that when it comes to effective capital management at your hospital, a spend analysis is the under-utilized tool that can transform your bottom line and bolster the strategic vision of the hospital.

The case study, about the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, FL, demonstrated how the project management office was able to employ spend analytics to quickly transform a an operating loss of 15.7 Million (in 2008) into a net surplus of 14.5 M (in 2009). What was a negative operating margin of 3.2% quickly became a positive operating margin of 2.95% for a total improvement of 6.15% in operating margin, which is very significant in a trouble economy. Plus, continued use led to even better results in 2010,when the hospital posted a 9.3% operating EBITDA margin.

For more details, see the case study on elevating the spend analysis function, but the message is clear. Spend analysis saves.

Deferred Spending Isn’t A Recovery

A recent article over on CNNMoney.com on “Made in America. Staying in America”. (CNN Money, Jan 28, 2011) reported that a turnaround in the U.S. economy is contributing to the solid fourth quarter profits reported by manufacturers that have been staying afloat by making a killing by selling industrial goods to customers in emerging markets.

As the CEO of Eaton said, people that deferred maintenance eventually have to buy new products. And people who prolonged a product’s life with maintenance eventually have to buy new products. And after two or three years of deferred spending, no matter what efforts are made to keep old machinery working, it’s going to start to break and the organizations are going to have to replace it. This doesn’t mean that there’s a recovery in the works or that demand is going to skyrocket, and acting like this is the case will only lead to the appearance of the bullwhip effect in your forecasting. And that’s not good for anyone.

The economy will recover, but it’s going to be a slow-and-steady recovery this time. Not only is the North America is tired of the boom-and-bust cycle of the past decade, but the jobless recovery and continuing mortgage crisis is going to ensure that it will be a while before exuberance returns to the market. So take it slow. Your supply chain will thank you.