Category Archives: Guest Author

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.

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:

  1. Number of building sites;
  2. Basic information about each site (e.g., address information, total square footage, building population, number of bathrooms, outdoor square footage);
  3. 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!

The next evolutionary phase of e-invoicing

Today’s guest post, which originally aired on Purchasing Insight, is courtesy of Pete Loughlin, Managing Editor at Purchasing Insight and a global expert on purchase-to-pay who could once be found on Twitter at @peteloughlin.

When it comes to electronic trading, the Latin Americans, most notably Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile, put the so-called developed countries to shame in terms of their ambition. While the Europeans continue to support business processes hardly changed since they were developed by the spice merchants of Venice during the Renaissance, South American governments are building business and tax collection infrastructures that many of us would never have dreamt possible.

It’s absolutely true. Many of the business conventions that are employed in the west today are based on the methods of trade developed by Italian bankers in the 16th century. The way we trade including systems of banking and credit were all fine-tuned to meet the needs of merchants trading in the far east. And while many aspect have been modernized some of the core principles remain the same. Old habits die hard and today, despite our delusion that we are part of a digital economy, about 80% of the B2B invoices in Europe are pieces of paper.

For over 20 years, the lawmakers in Europe have grappled with the growth of e-business and it’s is only recently that the European Union has developed something which comes close to a common understanding of what an electronic invoice is. You could sympathize. It’s not possible to simple throw away centuries of convention and legislation. Starting from scratch and reinventing trading rules from 1st principles to take into account modern technology is no easy task – impossible perhaps. But that’s what the Brazilians and the Mexicans have managed to achieve. The have reinvented the business of invoicing and tax collection.

Today in Brazil, the tax authorities know about every business transaction before it happens. They know about every delivery of goods and services and the tax due. Law enforcement agencies including customs officers and police have the power and the tools to check on goods in transit to make sure that all the documentation is in order and that tax is being collected properly. Whereas in Europe and North America, electronic invoicing is about efficiency, in Latin America it’s about maximizing tax revenue.

All a bit heavy handed some might think. A level of government interference in business that is going a step too far maybe. But to those – especially those in Europe – who think that there’s no need to further police tax collection, let me say one thing. Greece.

Whereas the taxman in Latin America is proactively monitoring trade in real-time, ensuring it is calculated correctly and ensuring it’s paid, the taxman in the UK is looking retrospectively at the accounts of the likes of Google and Starbucks, scratching his head and asking “Why don’t you pay tax?”

All respect to Latin America. This is the way we’d do it if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. But let’s take a look into the future and to some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Because that’s exactly what they have got – a clean sheet. They have virtually no physical infrastructure and even less business infrastructure. No embedded rules or conventions to hold them back. Could they build something even more sophisticated and ambitious? They can and they will.

When it comes to looking for the next evolutionary phase in e-invoicing, don’t look to the United States or Europe. Don’t even look to Brazil or Mexico. Look to Africa.

Thanks for letting SI reprint this awesome post, Pete!

Scandinavian and The Netherlands in the Creative Top Ten. Why?


Today’s guest post is from Gert van der Heijden, the Executive editor of Spendmatters.nl.

I just read the doctor‘s post on Sourcing Innovation (which I translated and posted on SpendMatters.nl) which noted that Scandinavia and The Netherlands are leading the world in creativity. The post, which referenced The Global Creativity Index, ranked 82 nations on their alignment between Technology, Talent and Tolerance to determine that Sweden was first, Finland was third, Denmark was fourth, Norway was eighth, and The Netherlands were tenth. While I have to admit that (being a Dutch bloke), as The Netherlands only came in tenth while the real Scandinavian countries were three of the top four, I shouldn’t be too proud of the Dutch, the next thought that came to my mind was the question of whether or not I believed the conclusions were right. So I looked at my field of expertise, the (small) world of sourcing and procurement and discovered these facts:

  • Science: In the Netherlands there are 6 professors in Supply Management
  • Publishing: A significant percentage of the scientific papers for the world wide IPSERA conference on Sourcing & Procurement were from individuals with a Nordic/Dutch background
  • Software: In Europe there are a lot of (e-)Sourcing Software providers, but some of the main players, like Basware and Tradeshift, come from the Nordics
  • Associations: Nevi is the third largest Professional Procurement Organization (after ISM and CIPS) in the world

Does this prove anything? I don’t think it really proves anything, but I have to admit that there should be a good reason why, for instance, our professional development is high in relatively small countries (Sweden 8.9 million, Norway 4.4 million, Finland 5.2 million and Netherlands 16.2 million), compared to surrounding countries that are much bigger (Germany 80 million, France 60 million, Spain 40 million, and UK 60 million).

I see a lot of similarity between the people in these countries in the way we approach our colleagues, our superiors and others. We like to discuss everything and our goal is to get consensus before we act. We like to do things, because we want to and not because our superiors are telling us to. The open, direct and confronting way of doing business and having meetings takes us a lot of time. This really differentiates us from the more hierarchic Germans and the more polite Brits. Therein might lie the difference. The Nordics do not think hierarchically and are more tolerant. So yes, I do believe that a lot of creativity can be found here, but I also believe we need the people in North America to get the work done, otherwise we will just keep on talking in an effort to be more creative.


Thanks, Gert.

Getting a Grip on Multi-Tier Supply Chain Risk – A Resilinc Commentary


Today’s commentary guest post is from Jon Bovit, Chief Marketing Officer of Resilinc, a provider of supply chain resiliency solutions for industries including high-tech, medical devices, and automotive manufacturers. SI recently covered Resilinc in detail in Do You Know What’s At Risk? Resilinc Does! and Will Resilinc Resonate with Your Supply Chain.

Today’s supply chains are complex, global, and highly dependent on
sub-tier suppliers. Long term sustained success of companies is hugely dependent on the resiliency of their suppliers. Despite this, most supply chain leaders are unable to readily access critical supplier information necessary in order to manage business effectively. Supply chain leaders need a solution that maps the global supply chain across multiple tiers, identifies critical supply chain dependencies, exposes critical vulnerabilities and single points of failure, manages risk mitigation across the organization, and optimizes resiliency practices throughout the organization.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the harsh reality is that measuring supply chain risk at the supplier, or even the location, level is inadequate for today’s global and complex supply chains. In order to properly managing supply chain risk, a company must start by mapping its global supply chain down to the individual products, parts, sites, and revenue across each of the multiple tiers. Once the multi-tier supply chain is mapped down to the product and part level, with the proper methodology, the company can calculate risk scores based on (multiple measures of) financial risk, location (economic and geopolitical) risk, and recovery risk (recovery time and BCP). By evaluating supply chain elements based on inherent financial, location and recovery risks (which align well with the risks identified in the recent World Economic Forum Global Risks report), supply chain practitioners can choose the most effective mitigation
strategies.

As an example, by utilizing the above methodology, the Resilinc platform is able to quickly identify high risk, high revenue, single sourced parts for a high-revenue producing business unit. The high risk may come from long recovery times from a specific supplier manufacturing site in Malaysia or Japan. The customer can then come up with specific risk mitigations strategies for those specific high risk, high revenue single sourced parts before a disruption occurs, which could save the company millions in losses and unmeasurable damage to its brand. If risk was measured at the supplier level, these details would have been missed completely.

Customers should not only focus on assessing and mapping risks based on their supplier global footprint and site locations, but also should capture sub-contractor and sub-tier supplier dependencies, site activities, part origin, alternate sites, recovery times, emergency
contacts, and business continuity planning (BCP) information. By focusing on identifying critical vulnerabilities and the highest risk exposures using quantitative scores and impact analysis at the product, part, and site level, leaders can direct limited budget and resources into the right areas for optimal protection against future supply chain disruptions.

Thanks, Jon!