Category Archives: Guest Author

How to Screw Up a Procurement Job Interview

Recently we published two guest posts from Charles Dominick of Next Level Purchasing on Assessing a Procurement Team’s Skills and Training a Procurement Team, but these were not his first. Nor his only good work. Five years ago we ran this post targetted not at procurement organizations, but procurement professionals who want a better job based on a great post on 5 [Common] Ways to Screw Up a Purchasing Job Interview that he published over on his Purchasing Blog.

Charles’ must read advice indicated that the following WILL screw up your interview:

  • taking an interview late in the processas all future candidates are compared to the one once that candidate is identified
  • not being prepared for the most common interview questionwhich, succinctly, is tell me about yourself

     

  • not distributing eye contactwhen being interviewed by multiple people
  • saying anything negativeas you will not be seen as the proactive team player they want to hire and
  • using slang inappropriatelyas there is no guarantee that an interviewer is going to understand what you mean, and if you say you are hotter than a fox in a forest fire for the job, and the interviewer isn’t familiar with that phrase and a strong PETA advocate …

In addition, the following will also screw up the interview:

  • not dressing appropriatelyeven if the company has a very laid back atmosphere in the workplace, don’t show up in shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, and sandals (as they need to know that you can make a good impression in front of a supplier)
  • over-stating your skills, experience, or knowledgeas you will be interviewed by the best and brightest and they will find you out
  • not knowing the market for the common Procurement categoriesif the job is in the electronics component division and you know nothing about the state of the semiconductor market, that’s not going to look good when they ask if you have any ideas to control costs in that market
  • not knowing what the company doesif they are an engineering company that primarily makes electronic components for personal entertainment and the automotive sector, but you only know them for their video game division, that’s not going to look good when they ask how you plan to reduce costs in the automotive division
  • not knowing the competitionand this is doubly damaging if you walk into the offices with the product or logo of direct competitor anywhere on your person.

Training a Procurement Team

Special thanks to Charles Dominick, SPSM3 of the Next Level Purchasing Association for this guest post.

In the previous post of this series, I covered how to determine the competencies in which each of your procurement team members should be trained. Today, I will cover the options for procurement training.

Specifically, I’ll cover the advantages and disadvantages of these five options:

  1. Internal Training
  2. On-Site Seminars
  3. Conferences
  4. Online Courses
  5. Certification Programs

Let’s begin …

Internal Training

Internal procurement training is when seasoned members of a procurement team provide classroom-style instruction to less senior members of the team.

Advantages: The main advantage of an internal training approach is that the training can be customized to be laser-focused on the issues specific to the organization. Also, no travel is required, making internal training convenient and low cost.

Disadvantages: There are many disadvantages to internal training. First, just because someone is a good procurement professional doesn’t mean they will be a good trainer. They are two separate professions. And it can be painful to listen to a less-than-expert public speaker drone on for hours at a time. Second, a valuable outcome of training is being exposed to new ideas that can be adapted to the organization. Internal training does not provide for such new ideas. Third, preparing a training event is more time consuming than many non-trainers think. When a procurement professional is spending hours upon hours preparing for training, they are not doing what they were hired to do: deliver value through excellent procurement performance. Fourth, taking an entire procurement team away from its regular duties to sit together at the same time in a classroom could lead to delays or disruptions in business operations.

On-Site Seminars

Holding on-site seminars involves hiring a trainer to deliver live training right at the facility where the procurement team works.

Advantages: Like internal training, on-site seminars do not require the staff to travel, offering convenience. But, unlike internal training, on-site seminars are conducted by expert trainers, which makes a high quality training experience much more likely.

Disadvantages: Like internal training, taking an entire procurement team away from its regular duties to sit together at the same time in a classroom could lead to delays or disruptions in business operations. Also, not all on-site trainers are available for questions after their time on-site is over. Finally, if you want the best trainer in the country or world — not just the best local trainer — it can be expensive as you will have to pay the speaker’s fee and his/her travel expenses.

Conferences

Conferences bring together procurement professionals from multiple organizations and multiple geographies, exposing them to a wide variety of educational sessions and providing them with networking opportunities.

Advantages: Attending conferences is a great way to be exposed to a wide variety of new ideas in a very compressed period of time. The opportunity to network with ambitious procurement peers is a benefit that is arguably just as important as the education.

Disadvantages: Sometimes, conferences have such a variety of topics presented that you don’t get as deep an education in one topic as you’d like. Also, having to be out of the office for two, three or more days is difficult for some procurement professionals.

Online Courses

Online courses provide procurement professionals with on-demand access to educational content. Learners access these courses via computers or mobile devices.

Advantages: This option removes the geographic and time-related barriers to learning from the best procurement training organizations. Procurement professionals can participate on their own and progress at their own pace. Questions can be asked at the time answers are needed most — when learned techniques are being implemented. The education can be consumed in small increments, serving as less of a distraction from normal business activities.

Disadvantages: Unlike conferences, where face-to-face networking is a top benefit, the benefits of online courses are more education-related.

Certification Programs

Certification programs take education to the next level by awarding a credential after the successful completion of training and testing.

Advantages: While many procurement leaders struggle to figure out the best topics on which their teams should be trained, certification programs are based on years of already determining that, providing a turnkey plan for procurement staff education. By successfully completing a certification program, a procurement professional will be awarded the privilege of using a credential — like SPSM — after his or her name. Credentials help procurement professionals prove their value and generate respect among peers, management, internal customers and suppliers.

Disadvantages: The best certification programs are designed to confirm that the best and brightest procurement professionals are, well, the best and the brightest. That means they may be too challenging for lesser performers.

As you can see, procurement professionals have a lot of options for training. The good news is that all of these options have merit. Any time that there are a lot of options, there is a chance of being overwhelmed and getting wrapped up in “paralysis by analysis.” My advice is to choose at least one option every year. Because when it comes to activities designed to increase your procurement knowledge, doing something is always better than doing nothing.

Assessing A Procurement Team’s Skills

Special thanks to Charles Dominick, SPSM3 of the Next Level Purchasing Association for this guest post.

You have a procurement team. It isn’t performing quite as well as you’d like.

You instinctively know that there has to be mismatches between the skill levels required for each position and the skill levels possessed by the occupants of those positions. You know action is required. But you can’t exactly put your finger on a way to solve the problems that are preventing you from maximizing procurement performance.

Where do you start?

Well, you can’t solve a problem unless you identify it. And you can’t effectively go to war without knowing what weapons you have. So, at this point, you need to assess the skills of each member of your procurement team.

Now, conducting a world-class procurement skills assessment is a pretty involved process. For the brevity required by a blog post, we will have to cover some parts of the process by simply stating what tasks need to be done and not necessarily how to do them. For example, before you assess procurement skills, you need to determine which competencies are required to achieve organizational goals. That’s an hour-long seminar in and of itself. Let’s assume that you already know what competencies are required for success and, therefore, what skills you need to assess. There are many options for assessing procurement skills, so we will spend more time on that process.

There are three ways of assessing procurement skills. The following is an excerpt from a Next Level Purchasing Association white paper entitled, “The Procurement Leader’s Guide To A More Successful Team: Seven Steps For Improving Skills & Getting Better Results.”

Skill Assessment Method A — Self-Assessment

One commonly used approach is to have each team member complete a self-assessment. For example, you may list your desired competencies and ask each staff member whether their skill levels in that competency are high, moderate or low. While this can get the job done quickly, it is not likely to be accurate.

First, the assessment is inherently subjective. Any skills assessment should be able to challenge a skill level claim with the questions “according to whom?” and “compared to what standard?” The answer to these questions for this method would be “according to the individual” and “compared to that individual’s opinion,” respectively. Not the strongest benchmarks.

Second, there is a risk that a self-assessment might be completed defensively. Individuals may feel that the reason for the assessment is to identify candidates to be downsized or to award promotions or raises. Therefore, individuals may rate their skills higher than they truly are in order to avoid punitive measures or to achieve rewards. Attitudes of individuals in these situations may be characterized by statements such as “If I don’t recognize my skills, how can expect others to recognize them?” and “If they knew my real skill levels, they wouldn’t be asking me to do this self-assessment, so why be modest?”

Skills Assessment Method B — Manager Assessment

Another approach is to either

(i) begin with a self-assessment and validate it with a manager’s review and update of that assessment or

(ii) to simply have the manager assess each staff member’s skill levels independently.

Of course, this approach is still subjective and “inside the box.” An internal assessment does not compare skills with best-in-class procurement professionals — it compares it with internal expectations, which often can drift to one of two extremes:

(i) the current team has inadequate skills or

(ii) the current team has been here a long time and the team members know their jobs inside and out.

When it comes to mastering all aspects of procurement, you should always lean towards the mantra of “We don’t know what we don’t know.”

Skills Assessment Method C — Third-Party Assessment

Yet another approach is to have the skills assessment performed by a third party. A third-party assessment can provide the most objective data. And you may be surprised that, depending on the provider, you can have a procurement skills assessment performed at little to no cost and little effort.

Regardless of the method chosen, you need to have an idea of at least two tiers of skill level in each competency: acceptable and unacceptable. A graduated measurement with data between these two tiers is better, but you must at least know the demarcation point between acceptable and unacceptable.

Using Assessment Results

Once you have assessed the procurement team’s skills, you need to do a gap analysis. Again, that’s one of those things that I could write on and on about. I’ll simplify it by saying you’ll document which team members lack adequate skills in which competencies.

Once you have your skill gap analysis, then can develop a roadmap for training in order to close those gaps. That topic deserves plenty of attention, so I will dedicate my next guest post to that topic.

Stay tuned!

Thanks, Charles.

To “Term” or Not to “Term” … That is the Question


Today’s guest post is from Torey Guingrich, a Project Manager at Source One Management Services, who focuses on helping global companies drive greater value from their expenditures.

I sometimes hear clients say, “We are leaning towards Vendor ABC because they don’t make us sign a contract“. In most cases, Vendor ABC does have a contract (or something acting as an agreement such as a letter of authorization, etc.); it is just based on a month-to-month term with no termination penalties/liability. Some companies have a knee-jerk reaction to avoid contracts, but while there appears to be less risk in a “no-term” contract, there are risks and rewards for both “term” and “no-term” agreements. Part of the strategic sourcing process is educating stakeholders on the different consequences of contract components such as term. When evaluating what type of contract or what term to leverage for your next agreement, consider these different aspects before negotiating a shorter (or longer) term contract.

Availability of Supply and Criticality to the Business:

Consider the supply management strategy of the category you are working with and where the product/service lands on the axes of availability of supply and criticality to the business. Based on the classification of purchasing strategy for the product or service to be sourced, you can determine if that strategy is best supported by a long-term partnership or a shorter-term, more flexible agreement structure. For example, if you are working within a category that is scarce in the market and critical to your operation, a long term contract is necessary to guarantee supply. On the other hand, if the products you are sourcing are widely available and can easily be replaced, it may be in your best interest to forego a term agreement.

Pricing/Price Changes:

One of the reasons why many companies opt for longer term contracts is to gain deeper discounts and ensure negotiated pricing is held for a period of time. When entering a contract, pay attention to the language around pricing and the supplier’s ability to change that pricing. Month-to-month contracts typically give the supplier the opportunity to raise prices; if you are purchasing in a market with downward pricing pressure, ensure that language also allows price reductions based on the market. Having a short-term contract in a market under pricing pressure may prompt suppliers to reduce pricing to prevent you from moving to a competitor. Likewise, when a market is trending up in cost (whether it be from decreased competition, increased maintenance costs, etc.) it may be prudent to lock in pricing with a long term contract. Depending on the industry, suppliers may offer signing bonuses, rebates, or other incentives when you sign a long term contract; these should be in addition to more competitive pricing in the contract.

Changeover:

Month-to-month contracts can be very appealing because in theory they allow you to simply change to another vendor if you are unhappy with your incumbent. There are certainly plenty of goods or services where companies are able to be vendor agnostic, but there are other categories where the cost to change is substantial. Likely, changing suppliers will (and should) involve a sourcing activity, e.g. RFP or RFQ, and thorough review of other suppliers in the market. After a new supplier is chosen, the transition process can be a relatively simple for some products or services, e.g. ordering IT accessories from another reseller, but can get more complex for others, e.g. migrating network services to a new carrier. If you are unhappy with the current supplier and chose to change, you will still need to rely on them to some degree during the changeover period. Be sure to consider the ease of change before jumping into a short or no term agreement under the assumption that you can quickly switch suppliers if needed.

Flexibility:

The name of the game in short-term or no term contracts in flexibility. Companies may elect to pay slightly higher pricing to have the flexibility to terminate services or purchasing whenever they see fit. This tends to surface when companies are considering technology changes; they have plans to migrate their services to a different technology or platform and the flexibility of a month-to-month contract allows them to change over as necessary without penalty. This is all well and good, but before entering a higher priced agreement or one that allows for pricing increases, consider your company’s track record on executing migration/change and truly exam the pricing risks that can come with flexibility. If the migration will be based on small, incremental change over time, it is likely you can still use a longer term agreement to your benefit. Also examine the reasons behind the company’s need for flexibility: if the concern is around certain SLAs or KPIs, you can try to add termination rights related to these performance levels and still operate under a term agreement.

As you contract for new and existing categories, don’t get stuck using a one-size-fits-all contracting pattern. Where changes occur in the market, category management strategy, or category roadmap, ensure that the contracts you put in place support those changes and allow your Procurement group to perform optimally.

Thanks, Torey.

Ditch the Pepsi Blues, Already: Become a Marketing Procurement Asset Part II

Today’s guest post is by Brian Seipel, a marking project expert at Source One focussed on helping corporations achieve both marketing and procurement objectives in their strategic sourcing projects.

In our last post we noted that when Pepsi did away with their marketing procurement department, it was a big deal, but it wasn’t really a shock. Marketing teams have never had a great relationship with procurement. Procurement is still trying to get their foot in the door when it comes to marketing spend, so it isn’t too much of a surprise if that door occasionally gets shut in procurement’s face.

But, despite this example, Procurement should not have anything to worry about. Organizations don’t get rid of marketing procurement — they get rid of bad marketing procurement. And if Procurement can demonstrate value, Marketing will listen. How does Procurement do that? As per yesterday’s post, it starts by becoming an asset, not a roadblock. The next step is to …

REALIGN PRIORITIES

Work with marketing to establish which group should lead discussions on different aspects of agency selection. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but quantifiable apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult, if not impossible, for some marketing initiatives. Concede the value-oriented comparisons to marketing, but take charge where a number crunching comparison is warranted.
Procurement pros also need to do a better job at understanding marketing goals as well as how objectives are phrased using a marketer’s language:

  • Markets select agencies as partners, not vendors. There’s more at play than who can do a job at the lowest cost.
  • Tune into ROI. A marketer wins not by reducing the dollars they spend, but by improving outcomes of what those dollars buy.
  • Promote actions that achieve your long-term goals. Instead of focusing on cost avoidance, work with marketing teams and agencies to establish process improvements that lead to greater efficiency.

A failure to speak the same language or understand priorities is a big reason that procurement is alienated from marketing initiatives; getting on the same page in these ways helps.

These goals don’t always align with the costs savings mandate procurement pros are tasked with, which necessitates a discussion with the top brass to iron out inconsistencies. The point we need to make is simple; I would rather take part in guiding procurement on Marketing’s terms than have no say at all. All of our value counts for nothing if procurement gets overlooked and shut out because we don’t offer compromises.

PUT “MARKETING” IN MARKETING PROCUREMENT

Spend time with a marketer, and you’ll see what they want out of an agency. All of those key qualities need to apply to procurement, as well.

They want to have a relationship with their agencies, not just a series of transactions. They want to work with an agency that not only carries a brand’s identity, but can support their vision for how growing it. They want an agency that can turn on a dime to support new, hot, unconventional campaigns — and has the knowledge to assist in the decision making process for any uncharted waters.

They want an agency that “gets it”. If we want that seat at the table, procurement needs to “get it”, too.


Thanks, Brian.