Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

Perfect Procurement Processes Will Not Save the Public Sector

There’s lots of hmming and hawing on both sides of the Atlantic about how the Public Sector has to reduce spend to help get deficits under control and how it needs better procurement processes to achieve this goal. Why, I don’t know, because even perfect procurement processes won’t save the public sector. I could write a treatise, but until the following fundamental problems are solved, there’s no point.

  • Past Performance Does Not Affect Current Awards
    This is so ridiculous its absurd. No private company in their right mind would say “you just screwed up this 500 Million system overhaul, but here, please bid on this other 500 Million system overhaul”. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. (At least not if they wanted to stay in business.)
  • X% Must Go to Minority/Domestic/Preferred Suppliers
    And while we’re at it, let’s just tag on 10% for the United Way. After all, they claim their overhead is now under 15%. (FYI: The overhead of a best-in-class, private, Supply Management Organization is a fraction of that.) Supply Management is about the best buy. Period. Diversity/Domestic/Preferred should only come into account when all other factors are equal or if they bring value that outweighs additional costs.
  • Salary is based on pay scales out of touch with reality
    Supply Management success requires top talent. And if you’re only going to offer 50% of the going market rate, you’re not going to attract anyone who’s any good. While there should be pay scales to insure fairness, they should be adjusted annually based on regional averages and existing employees making less than the minimum when the pay scale is adjusted should automatically be adjusted to the minimum before the annual raise and/or bonus is calculated.

What Competing Agendas?

The following was recently spoken at a leading sourcing conference:

The dynamics and sometimes competing agendas between finance and procurement are widely known.

Huh? What competing agendas? I am on planet Earth, right?

But more seriously, the fact that this myth is continually perpetuated is a serious problem. The reality is that, in a properly run organization, Finance and Procurement have the same fundamental agenda: Reduce Cost. Increase Efficiency. Drive Innovation. The only difference is that, for the most part, Finance is internally focussed while, for the most part, Supply Management is externally focussed. Just like the real goal of corporate finance is to insure that the company has more than enough money to achieve its goals and generate a return for the shareholders, the real goal of Procurement is to insure that the company has more than enough money to obtain the goods and services it needs and generate value for the customers, which, in turn, generates value for the shareholders.

The ultimate goal of any organization is to derive value for the stakeholders — employees, customers, and shareholders alike. Value is more than profit, it’s also sustainability and brand image. For example, if all a company does is produce cheap products that wear out quickly, either it’s going to go broke in warranty costs, or, if the product is not under warranty, it’s going to have a lot of upset customers who are not going to buy again, putting the long term financial viability of the company on the line.

As a result, Finance is about more than cutting costs and hitting budgets, it’s about analyzing the value of an internal spend and determining if the value is there to help meet the company’s goals. If hiring the best people increases that option, then Finance should determine that a higher payroll is the right decision and cost should be cut from somewhere else or, if there are no less critical areas, debt should be secured to obtain additional value, and profit, down the road.

Similarly, Procurement is about more than cutting costs to hit a savings target. It’s about finding the optimal balance of cost and value-add to maximize the overall return to the company. If buying from a supplier that costs 10% more will have a huge impact in brand perception, because either the component manufacturer is well respected and using their name will increase consumer interest or because the defect rate is significantly lower, then the slightly higher cost supplier is chosen. But if it’s a simple office supplies spend, then cost is cut to the low end of market pricing.

And both organizations are trying to find the right balance between cost cutting and value generation to meet the company’s goals and increase shareholder return. Just because Procurement is always spending while Finance is always trying to cut spend doesn’t mean that the departments are in opposition. Finance knows better than any other department that companies have to spend money to make money, it just wants to insure that the money is being spent wisely. And a good Procurement organization has better spending as its ultimate goal. There is no competing agenda between the Finance and Procurement Group, and any organization that thinks there is has a serious problem as they are not aligned, and alignment is become a key to success in today’s economy now that the Old Normal has returned.

To Maximize Value, Don’t Overlook Tail Spend

A recent article in the Sourcing Interests Group Newsletter on “understanding tail-spend management” noted that while ROI for tail spend categories will generally be lower than for core categories, those companies that keep their eye on the efficiency/effectiveness equation and approach tail-spend intelligently can still find significant savings that make the effort worth while. So how does an organization properly approach tail spend, which:

  • rarely includes direct materials
  • contains a disproportionately high percentage of spend from the furthest-flung subsidiaries
  • contains suppliers that no one in procurement has heard of
  • contains large percentages of non-compliance and maverick spend

Intelligently. And iteratively. Data must constantly be reviewed in the light of changing business requirements to determine the best course of action using the following process:

  1. Spend Analysis
    Focus in on the tail-spend data and figure out what is being bought, from whom, where, and for how much compared to market value.
  2. Filtering
    Focus on commodities that can be reclassified into a category that will have enough spend to be worthwhile.
  3. Sourcing Strategy
    Once the category with the biggest opportunity has been identified, determine the right sourcing approach. If a sourcing project is the right approach, accelerate it with standardized templates, RFX, and/or auctions.
  4. Spot Buy
    If the right strategy is to spot-buy in a weak market, then aggregate demand across the organization and spot-buy through e-RFX or automated auctions.
  5. P2P
    And, regardless of the right sourcing strategy, drive as much spend onto technology platforms, like P-cards, so that it can be tracked and analyzed.

And, most importantly,

  • use procurement technology
  • simplify processes and increase controls
  • establish resources and manage performance

How Do You Achieve Indirect Procurement Success?

As per this morning’s post on Common Challenges of Indirect Procurement, often the best way is to start with better technology and better processes, beginning with spend analysis. If the organization can quickly identify which categories will yield sufficient savings to make a sourcing project viable, then it can integrate high-opportunity projects into the strategic sourcing plan, put mid-opportunity projects out to auction, and simply ignore low-opportunity categories as the 20/80 rule generally applies to indirect Procurement as well. If better technology and processes are not possible due to budget or other constraints, sometimes the organization can outsource the categories to a third party. However, if the organization is not good at outsourcing, this could backfire.

So what does your Supply Management organization do to enable success if it can’t get better systems and can’t outsource? As per this recent article over on the HBR Blog Network on “how we killed our strategy to save our mission”, the best thing it can probably do in this situation is to get out of the way. Just like Question Box ultimately achieved success by shutting down its field operations (and killing its physical product line) to build toolkits to help local community organizations be successful, maybe the best thing Supply Management can do is to deliver a knowledge service that provides the other departments with the knowledge and tools they need to manage their major indirect categories efficiently and effectively. If Supply Management provides each department with the appropriate market information, strategy, contract templates, and other key sourcing tools for managing their high-dollar indirect procurement categories, then Supply Management can enable better results by acting as a consultant to the rest of the organization. It might not be the ideal situation for some Supply Management organizations, but if it improves the bottom line, and Supply Management’s reputation, it’s still a big step forward.

Common Challenges of Indirect Procurement

A recent article on “How to Leverage Outsourcing” over on Efficient Purchasing did a good job of summarizing the common challenges of indirect procurement across sectors and industries. Regardless of what industry your organization is in, chances are it has many of the following challenges, as illustrated by a recent NelsonHall study:

    • Effective Interaction with the Business Units
      While many executives are satisfied with the caliber of the personnel in their indirect procurement function, many are not satisfied with their ability to manage indirect procurement across the organization and control spend levels. Working with business units requires “softer” skills and the ability to act as “sourcing consultants” to the business.
    • Achieving Broader Category Coverage
      Indirect procurement is constrained by resources and by the huge range of indirect purchases made by a large organization. As a result, it is virtually impossible for an organization to have category coverage and market knowledge across all areas of indirect spend.
    • Efficiency
      The amount of indirect spend that is e-Sourced and the amount spent on indirect procurement personnel as a proportion of indirect spend under management is low in many organizations.
    • Process Improvement and Standardization
      There are generally huge issues around inconsistency of sourcing across subisdiaries or georgraphies in an average organization.
    • Lack of Time and Resources
      As a result, supplier databases and catalogs / punch-outs / product portals are generally out of date.
    • Lack of Management Information
      Detailed spend analysis is often unavailable for indirect spend.

Out-dated IT
Many companies, which take their time updating IT for direct spend, take even longer to update systems for indirect spend.

Now, the authors would have you overcome these shortfalls by outsourcing, but the reality is that many are overcome by implementing better technology and better processes, starting with spend analysis. If an organization can quickly identify which categories will yield sufficient savings to make a sourcing project viable, then it can integrate high-opportunity projects into the strategic sourcing plan, put mid-opportunity projects out to auction, and simply ignore low-opportunity categories as the 20/80 rule generally applies to indirect Procurement as well. Of course, if the department can’t get better systems, better processes, and more / better personnel, then it may have to consider outsourcing for results.