Category Archives: Guest Author

How much do you know about your (corporate) spending?

Today I’d like to welcome Bernard Gunther of Lexington Analytics, a specialist consultancy in spend analytics based in Lexington, Massachusetts.

How well do you understand the pricing you actually get from your vendors? Many companies don’t know as much as they should. Think about a typical situation:

Last year you finished a sourcing project and signed a contract with a vendor. The entire team, including purchasing, the business line and finance all believe the new rates will save the company significantly. Since then you have been buying from that vendor. Now, a year later, you want to know, are you getting the pricing you expected to receive?

How much do you really know about the spending? There are seven simple questions that you should consider. If you are managing your vendors properly, these should be easy for you and you should have the analytics to support them. If these are hard to answer, you have to ask yourself, “Do I really know what I’m paying for?”

  1. Contract Pricing
    Does your contract contain a pricing schedule?
    This sounds simple, but surprisingly many contracts don’t have pricing. Sometime the pricing is buried in different statements of work. This can be fine if the pricing is consistent across all statements of work. But you have to ask, why can’t the pricing be transparently put into a single location where it can be referred to by other documents? This should be true if the pricing is contained in a schedule; a formula; a discount from list retail price; or even if it represents a discount from a benchmark.
  2. Invoice detail
    Does your invoice contain enough detail for you to determine which price you are supposed to be getting?
    For each item on the invoice, can you tell the relevant contract terms to calculate the price? If you have fixed hourly rates for different types of electricians, but the invoice just states “Replace 10 power outlets – $1,546.05”, you have no way to confirm the pricing is correct. If your contract states you obtain a discount from a list price, do you have the list price on the invoice or even a separate table of list prices? If you don’t regularly capture these prices, you will find it very hard to reconstruct this data a year later.
  3. Electronic invoice
    Do you get the invoice data electronically?
    If you are ordering electronically, this should be easy. If you only have paper invoices, doing any analysis is going to be difficult. You’ll have to have data entry done on the data before you can do any comparisons. Every vendor should be able to provide you with a spreadsheet with their invoice details along with each invoice.
  4. Contract Coverage
    For what percentage of the spending is there a price which can be calculated from the contract?
    Using your electronic invoice data, you determine the portion of spending for which you can calculate the contract pricing. If this number is 98%, you have good coverage. If it is much less, you have to ask if you are comfortable or if you need to expand the coverage of your contract. For example, shipping rates might not be included in the contract pricing, but if they represent 1% of spending, it may not be an issue to worry about. If shipping costs end up being 25% of your spending, perhaps you should establish pricing (using your contract, their contract or a new contract). You may have a great price for PC hardware, but if 40% of your PC spending is not covered by the contractual rates, you need to understand the pricing on these other items.
  5. Pricing correctness
    For what percentage of spending is the pricing the same as in the contract?
    For items you buy that can be priced from the contract, are you getting the contractual price? This may sound obvious, but errors happen. If you don’t check, you don’t know. Error rates can be significant, sometimes approaching 20% or more of the items purchased. If 20% of the items you purchased are at prices 15% higher than the contractual rates, you have just had a 3% price increase across the board.
  6. Pricing trends
    If the contract pricing allows for pricing variation (for example, if the price is a discount from list price), how does the unit pricing vary?
    Are prices regularly rising where they shouldn’t be? Are prices flat when they should be declining? For example, you might expect general office supply pricing would stay flat; paper products might vary with the price of paper; technology pricing to decline; labor prices to vary based on market pricing; etc. Do prices drop when a new, lower price contract is put in place? Your analysis should be able to make these pricing changes transparent to all interested parties.
  7. Demand mix trends
    Has the demand for different items changed?
    Is the change in the contract coverage a function of users buying new items? If you are measuring, in detail, how a vendor is used, you will understand, in detail, how the user demand is shifting over time.

Some people assert that this is all useful, but it’s too hard to do. If you don’t manage your spend data and do not have detailed contracts, it will take some work to do this the first time. But we’re talking a few days or weeks of effort, not months or years. Once you’ve designed your invoice data and contracts for easy analysis, using the right tools, these reviews can be done in hours. The value delivered can be significant. If you don’t look, you will never know.

Thanks, Bernie.

Screwing up the Screw-Ups in BI

Today I’d like to welcome back Eric Strovink of BIQ [acquired by Opera Solutions, rebranded ElectrifAI].

Baseline recently put a slide show on their site illustrating “5 Ways Companies Screw Up Business Intelligence — And How To Avoid The Same Mistakes,” with data drawn from CIO Insight. The slides are an excellent example of how mainstream IT thinking misses the essential problems of business data analysis.

Let’s take the “screw-ups” one at a time:

  1. Spreadsheet proliferation (97% of IT leaders say spreadsheets are still their most widely used BI tool.)Spreadsheets are one of the most valuable business modeling tools available, and IT might as well understand that they’re not going away. The problem is when spreadsheets (and offline tools like Access) are used inappropriately, to manipulate transactional data rather than drawing it in the right format from a flexible store. The solution provided by Baseline is to “cleanse and validate your data, then migrate the information to a central server/database that can be the backbone of any BI strategy.” Bzzt! Sorry, a central database won’t solve the analysis problem, and at the end of the day you’ll have just as many spreadsheets as before. That’s because a fixed schema data warehouse is a lousy analysis tool, and might as well be on planet Neptune as far as usability for the business analyst is concerned. There’s nothing wrong with a reference dataset, but business analysts need to be able to manipulate its structure as easily as a spreadsheet, or they will simply extract the raw data from it and manipulate the data offline, with the same slow, expensive, and uncertain results as today.
  2. Systems can’t talk to each other (64% of IT leaders say integration and interoperability of BI software with other key systems such as CRM and ERP pose a problem for their companies.) Right! Except that the Holy Grail of trying to extend a “centralized” database umbrella over completely disparate systems is both incredibly expensive and nearly impossible. Baseline suggests “[partnering] with a reputable systems integrator.” Good for them — at least they dodge this bullet rather than getting the answer completely wrong. The right answer is that business analysts should be able to construct BI datasets on their own, as needed, from whatever data sources are useful/appropriate, and it shouldn’t be difficult for them to do so. Concentrating all of the information under one umbrella isn’t necessary; many umbrellas can do the job, and if they’re easy to deploy, they’re both inexpensive and provide a better and more flexible answer.
  3. No centralized BI program (61% say they don’t have a center of excellence of the equivalent of BI.)And they’d be well advised to tread carefully, because BI systems have a track record of poor performance and poor customer satisfaction. Why? Because the analyses you can do with a fixed data warehouse are limited to the views set up a priori by IT or by the vendor, and those views are largely immutable. Baseline dodges this one, too, suggesting the “[creation of] a data governance and data stewardship program.” Can’t argue with that in principle, but a governance and stewardship program doesn’t actually put any meat on the table. How about putting tools into analysts’ hands that they can actually use? Right now?
  4. Data lacks integrity (57% say poor data quality significantly diminishes the value of their BI initiatives.) Hmmm, I wonder why the data are of such poor quality. Could it be that the BI system doesn’t really provide much insight? Could it be that the fixed schemas set up by IT or by the vendor don’t have any applicability to day-to-day questions? Could it be that the inability of the BI system to re-organize and map data on the fly causes errors to persist over time? Baseline recommends spending more money on data cleansing, which might make a cleansing vendor quite wealthy, but won’t help much. It typically isn’t cleansing that’s the problem, it’s (1) the fixed organization of the data, which is guaranteed to be inappropriate for any analysis that hasn’t been anticipated a priori, (2) the ad hoc reporting on it, which has to be easy to accomplish, as opposed to requiring IT resources (see below), and (3) the fact that cleansing can’t be accomplished on-the-fly (as it should be) by the business analysts themselves.
  5. Managers don’t know what to do with results (58% say most users misunderstand or ignore data produced by BI tools because they don’t know how to analyze it.)Even when BI is in place, nobody knows what to do with it. Baseline recommends that “IT staffers… should work closely and regularly with business managers to ensure that measurement, reporting, and analysis tools are supporting business goals.” But this is precisely the problem. For business analysts, BI systems are difficult to use and set up, it is difficult to create ad hoc reports, and it is impossible to change the dataset organization. It is also politically impossible to change the dataset organization if it is being shared by hundreds or thousands of users. How are you going to get them into the same room to agree on the changes?

    So, Baseline is proposing (in essence) that IT resources sit cheek-by-jowl with business users, to ensure that they can get value out of a system that they otherwise could not use. This is certainly a “solution” of sorts, but it’s not practical. Either business analysts can use the system on their own, or the system will be of marginal value to them. It’s that simple.

the doctor’s Guest Contributions: The Half Year in Review

Since the last summary of my guest post contributions (in June), I’ve blogged a number of guest posts over on eSourcing Forum [WayBackMachine] as well as authored or co-authored a number of the initial versions of the wiki-papers over on the eSourcing Wiki [WayBackMachine]. I’ve also contributed articles to the EyeForProcurement monthly newsletter as well as Efficient Purchasing.  For those looking for some more insights on various topics, here they are.

e-Sourcing Forum

A Case for E-Sourcing and E-Procurement Integration
A Global Trade Primer
Applications of Spend Analysis
Brunswick Corporation’s e-Auction Best Practices
Collaborative Negotiation
Confucious eSourcing Project Management Tips
Five Ways to Take Your Sourcing to the Next Level
Incentives Motivate
Key Challenges of Tomorrow, Part II
Key Challenges of Tomorrow, Part III
Nine Steps to e-Procurement Success
Optimal E-Tool Selection
Optimization is the Future And The Future is Now
Seven Tips for SaaS Selection
Some Low Cost Country Sourcing Insights
Supplier Enablement
Ten Common Negotiating Mistakes
Ten Tips for Talent Retention
The Benefits of Purchasing Consortiums
Twelve Steps to Purchasing Program Predominance

e-Sourcing Wiki

The Basics

  • Strategic e-Sourcing Best Practices : A Total Value Management Perspective
  • On-Demand / SaaS Application Platforms : Introduction to a Rapid Software Deployment Model
  • The Quest for Purchasing Fire : Develop the Internal Strategies for Selling the Procurement Tools Internally
  • Strategic Sourcing Success Factors : Best Practice Principles of Corporate Procurement

The Technologies

  • Spend Analysis and Opportunity Assessment : There’s Gold in Them There Hills … Of Data
  • e-RFx & Supplier Management : The Strategic Sourcing Workhorse
  • e-Auctions in Sourcing : The Strategic Sourcing Equilizer
  • Sourcing Decision Optimization : The Inefficiency Eliminator
  • Contract Management and Compliance : A Total Value Management Introduction

The Methodologies

  • Center Led Purchasing : The Procurement Organization of Tomorrow
  • Cost Reduction and Avoidance : Best Practice Principles of Corporate Procurement
  • Demand Driven Supply : A pull-based customer-centric approach to supply chain planning and execution
  • Next Generation Sourcing : 21 Strategies to Innovate Sourcing
  • Procurement Outsourcing : A Brief Introduction
  • Purchasing Consortia : The Emerging Collective
  • Six Sigma : Improve Supply Chains through Methodology
  • Supplier Performance Management : Measure, Analyze and Manage
  • Suppliers in a Supply Organization
  • Talent Management : Build and Retain World Class Sourcing Talent

A Global Sourcing Primer

  • Corporate Social Responsibility : A Sustainable Solution
  • Low Cost County Sourcing : A Blogger’s Perspective
  • An Introduction Global Trade : The Basics of Global Trade
  • An e-Procurement Primer : 9 Steps to Procurement Success
  • A Supply Chain Finance Primer : Financing Your Way to Success
  • A Customs and Security Primer : Keeping the Global Supply Chain Secure
  • A Free Trade Primer : Global Tax Relief
  • A Regulatory Compliance Primer : Keeping it Legal
  • Supply Risk Management : Mitigate Risks and Reap Rewards

Articles

Why aren’t you optimizing?, Efficient Purchasing Issue 5, Fall 2007

Why Aren’t You Optimizing Your Sourcing Decisions? EyeForProcurement August 2007 Newsletter

 

Integrating Contract Management and Spend Analysis

Today I’d like to welcome back Eric Strovink of BIQ [acquired by Opera Solutions, rebranded ElectrifAI] to Sourcing Innovation. In this post, Eric tackles the contract management – spend analysis integration issue that the sales and marketing representatives of a number of suite vendors often make a lot of fuss about.

If your company is like most, your contracts are a hodge-podge of dense language resulting from hundreds of negotiations, whether you have a Contract Management (CM) system or not. If you already have a CM system, chances are good that most of your contracts aren’t written with the templates and standard language that some of them offer. In fact, most companies use CM systems simply to organize existing unstructured contracts for better searching, reporting, accessibility, and tracking – with the promise, in some CM systems, of proactive alerts.

So when an e-sourcing vendor claims to “integrate” Contract Management with Spend Analysis, exactly what does this mean? Well, as it turns out, it isn’t even necessary to have a CM system in order to integrate your contracts into your Spend Analysis (SA) system.

Let’s imagine that there’s a stack of contracts on the corner of your desk. The “stack” can be a “virtual” stack that’s held in a CM system, or it can be a physical stack of documents; it’s not important which. Each contract represents an ability to buy a commodity or a group of commodities from a specific vendor, over a specific period of time, perhaps additionally limited to a geographical region or a business unit.

Let’s walk through the process of integrating a contract into the SA system.

1) In the SA system, we create a data dimension called “Contract.” It is a simple list of contract names or other identifying information. An entry is defined for each of the contracts in our stack.

2) Using the SA system’s mapping rules, we map potential spending to each contract in turn. The spending on a contract is typically a function of Supplier, Date Range, and Commodity. For example, if contract C174-KELLY was for temp labor, and it was valid between February 2001 and October 2001, and it was with Kelly Services, then we map the combination of

Commodity

Time

Vendor

to the contract:

Mapping

After applying this rule, if we then filter (“drill”) the SA system on the HR>Recruiting>Temps commodity, we see these amounts in the Contract dimension:

Contract

Does this mean that all of the 95,996 Kelly spending was on contract? Absolutely not, since we cannot know (1) if Kelly charged us the correct contract price, or (2) whether someone used Kelly without realizing that we had a contract, or (3) whether in fact anyone ever used the Kelly contract at all when doing business with Kelly. Which is why talking about “compliance” at this level of analysis is silly. But we do know, if we’ve entered all our contracts this way, that the “Other” spending was definitely not on contract. That’s valuable information, and it’s better than half-measures to find bypass spend, such as a “preferred vendor” dimension.

Now, what was the difficult part of the above? Well, it was figuring out what “Commodity” the contract was for, from the perspective of the SA system. Building the Contract dimension is easy (perhaps a vendor’s “integration” logic performed this few minutes of work for you) – but building the rule that maps the contract into the spend cube requires reading the contract and deciding what SA commodity should be referenced. The final work to add the appropriate rule to the SA system? 20 seconds, tops.

Bottom line: It’s easy to integrate contracts information into your SA system. And, with some SA systems, you can embed an HTML link to the contract document itself, directly from the Contracts dimension, to establish a useful reverse linkage.

All without a CM system at all!

The Future of Spend Analysis

In this post, we welcome back Eric Strovink of BIQ [acquired by Opera Solutions, rebranded ElectrifAI].

At the incessant prodding of Michael Lamoureux, here are some prognostications for Spend Analysis in 2008.

  1. The distinction between data-warehouse-based spend analysis tools and Business Intelligence tools will erode, as it is already doing. The only requirements on the BI side are a mapping engine that can handle spend transactions reasonably, and an improved ability to import data from sources other than the ERP system. A third party may well step up to the plate and offer these (and perhaps other) add-ons for a particular BI platform, creating instant (and possibly fatal) competition for existing spend data warehouse suppliers.The consequences of this erosion will be more decisions in 2008 to use existing BI tools within the enterprise for spend visibility, rather than to acquire procurement-centric tools from an e-sourcing vendor. These decisions may well be made by IT or by Finance, perhaps overruling or ignoring Procurement completely. This erosion will mark the beginning of the end for big-ticket data warehouse spend analysis implementations.
  2. The distinction between spend analysis tools and spend data warehouse tools will widen. It is impossible to perform ad hoc analysis with a fixed-schema data warehouse, especially in a space like Procurement where many different views of the data are required before useful insight can be obtained. BI solutions to spend analysis will suffer from this problem as well.This will mean additional Procurement business in 2008 for data analysis vendors such as SAS. However, the real keys to capturing the spend analysis business will be the flexibility of the analysis tool, its approachability by business users, and its ability to quickly create and manipulate large datasets. Data analysis providers (as well as decision optimization providers) will remain niche players until business users can operate their products without assistance.
  3. OLAP technology is awkward, and presents many limitations for spend analysis. This will become increasingly apparent as more general purpose datasets (datasets which may seem simple, but whose organization is far more complex than mere A/P spend cubes) are considered by spend analysts. Spend analysis providers will need to provide simpler and easier ways to build datasets that overcome (or shield) business users from the limitations of the underlying OLAP data organization.Thus, we will see in 2008 the beginnings of an ability to cross-link loosely-related datasets, to build and control those linkages quickly and easily, and to create cross-dataset analyses and reports from a unified perspective. Although these advanced capabilities are already present from enterprise database vendors (and are featured prominently in their marketing literature), from a spend analysis perspective they are just laboratory curiosities given the huge effort, expertise, and expense required to set them up and maintain them. The breakthrough for spend analysis will come when ordinary business users with no IT skills can build and explore disparate and loosely-coupled datasets just as easily as they can link spreadsheets together.
  4. Invoice analysis and commmodity-specific analysis, such as that being performed by The Buying Triangle and Opera Solutions will dominate the “what’s new” frontier for spend analysis practitioners during 2008. Invoice analysis carries with it the promise of immediate refunds or other consideration from incumbent suppliers, and the consequent ability to fund entire spend management efforts through careful analysis of past contract compliance.Invoice analysis means negotiating with incumbent suppliers from a position of knowledge and strength, while the relationship is good, rather than dismissing the supplier outright, or blind-siding the supplier with an RFP. Even if the ultimate decision is to go to the open market, or to dismiss the supplier at the end of the current contract, there is money on the table to be recovered now. There is no reason not to go after it.