Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

Spend Matters in Procurement

Yesterday, over on Spend Matters, JB brought up two very good points.

  1. Every dollar spent on procurement will generate a 300% to 600% ROI
    As noted in “beyond shedding the deadweight in procurement and operations” on Spend Matters, the last place you want to cut budget is procurement. When Hackett data continually finds that average performing companies get a 300% annual return from procurement-focusssed dollars and best-in-class performers get a 600% annual return from procurement-focussed dollars, in these tough economic times, you should be increasing your procurement budget. Many products, especially SaaS offerings where you pay by the month, will generate a return before the second payment is due. Plus, most of the better service providers are willing to wait until the project is completed and you document a return before invoicing you. That means you can actually make the money to fund your operations before you even spend it!
  2. It’s never been a better time for a make/buy analysis
    Not only will this help you turn on a dime if you have to turn on a dime because your current supplier goes under, a natural disaster takes out a key raw material (and you need a replacement product that uses an alternate raw material), or cost increases force a new business model, but it could also help you save a bundle. In addition to the e-Sourcing and Decision Optimization vendors that JB lists, whatever you do, don’t forget the should-cost experts at Akoya and Apriori. You don’t want to make a sourcing decision based solely on price quotes alone. Otherwise, you might accept a low-bid that is unsustainable by the supplier who is so desperate for your business that they effectively bid themselves out of business.

QuickDraw Procurement with Coupa QuickStart

Earlier this week, Coupa announced the availability of Coupa Quickstart, the second in a string of big announcements they have planned for the first half of this year. (The first was, of course, the acquisition of a new CEO, Rob Bernshteyn, earlier this month.)

As noted in the Press Release, Coupa Quickstart is a setup wizard that visually guides purchasing mangers through the setup process for users, approval rules, payment and shipping terms, billing information, chart of accounts, suppliers, and other basic information that is required to get a purchasing system up and running in less than an hour. Noticing that one of the biggest barriers to adoption of e-Procurement software in small and smaller mid-size organizations was the lack of (technical) personnel to support the acquisition, setup, and implementation of en e-Procurement system, Coupa wanted to build an on-demand e-Procurement system that any buyer, with limited technical capability, and only a browser at his or her disposal, could set-up by themselves quickly and easily. The Quickstart wizard, built on top of a basic, default configuration and e-Procurement process, enables a buyer to get going as soon as they define basic company information and configure the system on an as-needed basis. As a result, most users will be able to be up, running, and cutting their first purchase order in under an hour. (Small organizations with only a few users and simple approval hierarchies will be up and running in under half and hour, and one customer managed to get a basic system configuration defined in only ten minutes!)

The Coupa QuickStart process is a streamlined process that walks a user through:

  • Company Info Definition
    In this stage the user defines the company name and address, uploads the logo, and defines the currencies (default USD), units of measure (default Each), departments (if required), and standard commodities (pre-populated with a basic default list Coupa has found to be common to many small and mid-size business) they buy on a regular basis.
  • User Definition
    In this stage, the system users and approval hierarchies are defined.
  • Financial Rules Definition
    In this stage, the user can define the company’s standard payment terms, shipping terms, billing info, and accounts (& account structure). (The system can auto-generate account numbers if the user simply defines the legal values in each segment.)
  • Supplier Definition
    The user defines the suppliers they do business with. Invitations are sent to the supplier to connect electronically, and if the supplier is already defined as a user in the Coupa system, they will see the user’s company as a customer in their instance when they accept.

Finally, the new QuickStart offering comes with a streamlined help system that contains numerous “visual” entries on how to use the invoicing, receiving, RFQ, budgeting, inventory, contracts, and punch-out capabilities as well as numerous other standard Coupa features.

The Art of Procurement Mastery

Now more than ever, procurement leaders have enormous responsibilities on their shoulders. Not only are they expected to drive even larger cuts in costs of goods sold but they are under fierce pressure to make every business process as efficient as it can possibly be. So notes Gregory Spray in a recent Supply Chain Management Review article on “The Art of Procurement Mastery”.

The article also notes that not many companies are using the downturn as an opportunity to radically rethink their activities and strategies. A downturn is a great opportunity to snap up top talent, apply business analytics to develop sharper insight, collaborate closely with suppliers to drive product innovation, and outsource effectively.

The article examines the performance gap between “procurement masters” and their lesser performing industry peers that was highlighted in a recent Accenture survey across more than 600 procurement executives from Asia, Europe, and North America which found that procurement masters achieve 30% higher savings with costs that are 50% lower, procurement masters outsource at a frequency that is two to four times higher than low performers (depending on the function), and procurement masters are leaders in supplier relationship management. I have to say that these results are not unexpected, given that Hackett has been logging similar results for almost three years now.

The study defined a “procurement master” as one with superior performance in the following five metrics:

  • Total-Cost-of-Ownership (TCO) savings
  • Spend Under Management (by Procurement)
  • Ratio between TCO Reduction and Procurement Operating Costs
  • Percentage of NPD/NPIs where Procurement has a Material Role
  • Percentage of Suppliers Managed Under a Formal Process

So what do procurement masters do that their industry peers don’t?

  1. More Thoughtful and Pragmatic Procurement Strategy
    Masters look and think three to five years out when planning purchases for critical business categories and they do a more innovative job of measuring procurement performance.
  2. Better Guidance for Sourcing and Category Management
    Masters employ a center-led organizational design that cuts across organizational entities and employ best-practice sourcing processes that emphasize

    • common processes
    • wide-spread usage of cross-functional procurement teams
    • formally tracked activities
    • tight focus on TCO
    • end-to-end supply chain orientation
  3. Greater Innovation in Procurement Processes
    For example, 83% of masters (compared with 8% of low performers) excel at providing clear and documented buying channels to end users and 87% of masters use LCCS for value creation.
  4. More Assertive Supplier Relationship Management
    Supplier Relationship Management is a leading practice of procurement masters with 84% employing a supply-base segmentation approach (compared to 1% of low performers), 83% employing automated tracking and reporting of supplier performance (compared with 1% of low performers), and 80% employing central logging and proactive management of contracts (compared with 8% of low performers).
  5. Supplier Workforce Management and Organization
    Masters excel in workforce management with 78% (compared to only 3% of low performers):

      • Objectively measuring existing competencies
      • Frequently adjusting organizational skills to align with procurement strategy
      • Emphasizing ongoing training
      • Blanketing competency development strategies across the procurement network

    In addition, 86% of masters use variable pay schemes (that compensate high performers).

  6. More Effective Use of Technology
    As the article astutely points out, technologies and technology-based solutions have advanced considerably in being able to support innovations in procurement and leading procurement executives are looking to new technology solutions to help digitize the entire supply chain.

As this echoes many of the messages my fellow bloggers and I have been conveying for the past few years, I’d say that this is good advice across the board.

Managing The Purchasing Factory


Today’s guest post is from Pierre Mitchell, Director, Procurement Research and Advisory for The Hackett Group.

Dave Nelson, the CPO from John Deere, co-authored a book titled “The Purchasing Machine“. The book was good, but never explained the meaning of the title. It did however get us thinking about the analogy of a factory to a Procurement function, and how Procurement can apply Lean Manufacturing principles to its operations.

Many companies are currently implementing Six Sigma methodologies, and both Lean and Six Sigma emphasize a focus on the customer and the elimination of waste. Six Sigma’s “DMAIC” methodology can very easily be applied (and is being applied at some progressive organizations):

  • Defining the needs of procurement’s internal customers,
  • Measuring the criteria of success (e.g., supply assurance, savings, supplier innovation, etc.),
  • Analyzing the current situation (e.g., too many suppliers, too many ways to buy, etc.),
  • Improving the processes (i.e., the “opportunity identification” step in a sourcing methodology), and
  • Controlling processes to “hold the gains” (e.g., contract compliance) through fail-safe processes.

This is foundational and fundamental stuff. However, applying lean manufacturing techniques to the “white collar factory” of sourcing and P2P (Purchase-to-Pay) is a mostly untapped area of opportunity.
Interestingly, some procurement organizations have named themselves “Supply Chain Management” even in non-manufacturing environments (e.g., Bank of America), but yet they always haven’t taken to heart key practices that manufacturing organizations have put in place on the shop floor. This is unfortunate, because it can be done.

Managing the “sourcing factory”

One way to view strategic sourcing is that of a Configure-to-Order business that “manufactures” highly profitable services. How profitable? For every $1 invested in procurement, world-class procurement delivers $7 to the firm, and that number goes even higher when looking at strategic supply processes. Unfortunately, there is a backlog of work because there is not enough investment in the bottleneck work centers (e.g., commodity managers), and not enough profitable services are getting out the door. So, attacking the bottleneck is critical, but funds are not unlimited to purchase more capacity, and must be freed from other areas (e.g., transactional processes) while improving “yield” through better work methods and measured doses of appropriate automation (e.g., freeing up commodity manager’s time via better spend/supplier analytics).

Another issue within the sourcing factory is aligning capacity to customer expectations via a “Capable-to-Promise” model. Various types of standard sourcing services, and their associated lead times and quality levels, should be offered up to customers based on finite capacity, and then configured to order. Without segmented “flow lines” (e.g., simple negotiations versus complex ones), standard lead times, capacity planning, and demand management (e.g., setting rules by which procurement must be involved in sourcing), the factory is going to be backlogged, quality will suffer, and customers will be very unhappy.

Designing what you can manufacture

The end of the sourcing factory is not the contract. A sourcing service is only profitable when preferred agreements are actually utilized within the “P2P factory” (where orders are placed and bills are paid). Unfortunately, they often aren’t. For the average company, our benchmark data puts overall bypass/maverick spend at 10%; but the real problem lies within indirect spend. A custom study that we did with 200 firms on contract management revealed a 23% maverick spending figure for influenced indirect spend. This translates to $11 million in lost savings per billion in indirect spend for the typical company. The problem with this $11 million of “scrap” is that the design of the Source-to-Settle process didn’t adequately consider the downstream processes of P2P (or supplier management and development). Strangely, every strategic sourcing methodology includes a “stakeholder management” process, yet the methodologies rarely explicitly define how P2P processes and systems will guide users to preferred supply sources and optimal buy/pay methods. It’s important to make strategic sourcing staff accountable for maverick spending (and not just savings). Treat P2P process users as customers – key stakeholders – and utilize thoughtfully designed downstream processes such as P2P and supplier management and development.

Converting the P2P job shop to flow lines

Most companies claim they have a defined P2P process, but if you scratch the veneer, you’ll find issues — e.g., only one-quarter of typical firms have single accountable P2P process owners. Frankly, some companies’ P2P processes are positively medieval, with each transaction handcrafted in a manner befitting the purchaser trying to get it through the system. If a firm has moved into the industrial age of P2P manufacturing and does have any P2P methods defined, it is likely the venerable three-way match. In manufacturing vernacular, this is known as a “job shop” — a “one facility fits all” general purpose processing capability, where everything goes in on one side and hopefully makes it out the other. If it’s an ERP environment, it’s “one system fits all”. In Lean manufacturing environments, flow lines (or “cells”) are set up based on families of similarly-made parts; for P2P processing, firms should define tailored transactional flow lines beyond the 3-way match, to include p-cards, assumed receipts, Evaluated Receipts Settlement (ERS), invoice-to-contract matching when POs not required, etc.

Papers from Hackett’s Purchase-to-Pay advisory program describe these concepts: “”Using an Optimized Transaction Strategy to Achieve P2P Efficiency”” and “A Management Primer for Balancing Risk and Control in P2P”. By designing a “P2P manufacturing” factory with transactional flow-lines that are fit-for-purpose, efficiency and effectiveness will invariably improve.

Thanks, Pierre!

We Don’t Need No Consultants

Today’s guest post is from Patrick J. Horgan of Paladin Associates.

Why Some Companies Don’t Seek Needed Cost-Reduction Help

Cost-reduction is essential in today’s economy, but unfortunately many managers have little experience in these activities. Mistakes in cost-reduction can damage morale, productivity, and can even precipitate a corporate death-spiral. Experts recommend independent cost-reduction consultants, but most companies don’t seek external help. Their reasons sometimes make sense, but they are often emotional and thought through poorly. Here are some common rationalizations which prevent many companies from seeking the help and getting the results they really need:

“We don’t need help.”
“We can do cost-reduction ourselves”. Or, “we should be able to do it ourselves.” “We already have cost-reduction initiatives.” “We will soon have cost-reduction initiatives underway.” “External consultants will probably try to take credit for things we have already identified.”

“We don’t want help.”
“Consultants may find things that are embarrassing or that we probably should have found. We may be blamed for these things.” “We will not be able to personally control what they find or communicate.” “We are currently too disorganized to undertake such an initiative.” “We don’t want a lot of change and turmoil.”

“We can’t afford help.”
“Consultants charge a lot, usually up front.” “We have no budget for this.” “We can do it for less.”

“We don’t believe consultants can actually help.”
“Consultants just feed back what we already know. They don’t actually produce results.” “Consultants won’t understand our business.” “How would we know if we actually saved anything?” “We’ve had bad experiences with consultants and cost-reduction projects in the past.” “External consultants are against company policy, or require high-level approval.”

“We are not the decision makers.”
“We don’t really know who decides this, and we don’t want to ask.” “Someone else is in charge of this; it’s not our job.” “IT/Telecom has sourcing responsibility; not Sourcing.” “IT and Telecom are under different organizations, yet buy off of the same contract.”

“It is not in my personal political interest to support this.”
“Cost-reduction can be risky… might result in reorganization, reassignment, budget cuts, layoffs, new priorities, loss of power, change — could be bad for me personally.” “Our boss doesn’t want to do this.” Or, “Our boss might want to do this, but we don’t.” “If this doesn’t work out, we might be blamed.” (But maybe we should pretend to be interested and slow-roll this.)

“We don’t have or control the resources to support such an effort.”
“We have other priorities.” “We don’t have good data on costs and spending.” “We don’t have the staff for this.” “We have lots of contract leakage as internal components are organizationally fragmented.” “To capitalize on many initiatives may require cross-functional cooperation and coordination which we don’t control, and priorities which we don’t have.”

“We don’t want to disrupt our vendor relationships.”
“We already have great prices.” “We depend on our vendors for things other than price.” “The supplier has a personal relationship with the CXO.” “We really enjoy the annual Vendor Golf Weekend at Pebble Beach.”

The Real Facts
Sometimes these rationales are valid, but most often they are not. Companies may have excellent relationships with their suppliers, but it’s inescapable that continuous competition improves the breed and reduces cost. Cost-reduction falls directly to the bottom line, and should be pursued aggressively despite fuzzy reasons to the contrary.

Even though companies “ought” to be able to run effective cost-reduction programs themselves, in reality they frequently do not. For many reasons — budgets, staffing, expertise, priorities, timing, politics, whatever — the opportunities go unmined… and the potential savings go unrealized. Or they are done in an amateur fashion, often with unintended consequences. Most companies don’t and probably can’t have enough qualified resources to do this thoroughly.

Cost-reduction consultants do this for a living, not just during the occasional recession… they are experts and know all the tricks. External consultants can often help cut through internal politics and conflicts of interest. They can catalyze stalled activities and get them rolling.

Independent consultants can help analyze spending patterns, and specifically focus on and drive results… particularly if they are paid on a percentage of savings realized. This approach eliminates upfront fees, reduces risk, and insures an excellent ROI. The money saved can pay for fees many times over. External resources can accelerate cost-reduction savings. Additional bandwidth leverages employees, and gets more done, faster. Time is money.

External cost-reduction experts jump-start and insure execution of cost-reduction programs that can preserve a business in times like these. Cost-reduction programs should be win-win initiatives, structured and empowered to encourage cross-functional cooperation. They should be supported and regularly reviewed by high-level executives, not just lower-level employees who may fear blame or loss of status.

Thanks, Pat.