Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

Procurement Myths Debunked! Part II

Over on spendmatters.com/cpo, the maverick has been doing a great job knocking out Procurement myths one by one, with twenty (20) down and five (5) to go. While the doctor did not co-author this series, as per a post this spring, he did consult on them and believes that all of these are myths that you need to be aware of.

The next 10 myths are:

  • Sourcing is Better than Supplier Management for Value Creation
  • Efficiency and Effectiveness: You Can’t Have Both
  • Apply the Kraljic Model to Spend Category Procurement
  • Technology is Only a Tool
  • Procurement Owns Spend Management
  • Procurement ROI is the Single Best Procurement Metric
  • “No PO, No Pay” is a Best Practice
  • Spend Category Taxonomies are Hierarchical
  • Procurement Needs a Mandate
  • Supply Management is a Department

Of these, the doctor‘s favourites are:

  • Technology is Only a Tool
  • Efficiency and Effectiveness: You Can’t Have Both
  • Spend Category Taxonomies are Hierarchical

Technology is not just a tool, it is a transformation engine that allows its users to be more efficient, effective, and transformational. It’s a process enabler, and the process at the same time. The level of your technology is directly proportional to the level of your Procurement maturity.

With the right platforms that enable the right processes, Procurement can be efficient and effective. It can also save money and provide increased value generation opportunities. For example, using technology enabled marketplaces to identify more sustainable suppliers can not only cut costs but also increase value as it gives marketing more to work with and allows the organization to increase brand value, which correlates to sales, with less effort and less money.

Finally, there is no one taxonomy, and if there was, it definitely wouldn’t be hierarchical. Products can be grouped by function similarity, component similarity, and department or geographic utilization, for example. Services by function, geography, and strategic nature, for example. Products and services can be mixed or kept separate. The best category definition at any given time will depend on market conditions, supplier capability, and projected utilization over the expected duration of the contract.

Supply is fluid, and Procurement must be as well to keep up. And it definitely must avoid the traps laid by the common Procurement myths.

Procurement Myths Debunked! Part I

Over on spendmatters.com/cpo, the maverick has been doing a great job knocking out Procurement myths one by one, with twenty (20) down and five (5) to go. While the doctor did not co-author this series, as per a post this spring, he did consult on them and believes that all of these are myths that you need to be aware of.

The first 10 myths are:

  • Hit Your Metrics
  • Pay No Heed to Cost Avoidance
  • Stay Away from Maverick Spending
  • Surveys are Silly
  • The Shared Services Model is Bad
  • PMOs and CoEs are Bad
  • Spend Should Always Decrease
  • Category Management is Best
  • Take Negotiated Savings Out of Budgets
  • Sourcing and P2P Definitions are Set in Stone

Of these, the doctor‘s favourites are:

  • Stay Away from Maverick Spending,
  • Spend Should Always Decrease, and
  • Take Negotiated Savings Out of Budgets.

While avoiding maverick spend is generally a best practice, sweeping it under the rug, even if it is small, is not a best practice — nor is mandating a stop until you understand why there is maverick spend. Is it because the buyer doesn’t know, doesn’t care, or thinks he has found a better deal? If the buyer didn’t know, then there is an issue with the process (of communication) somewhere, and fixing it will prevent future maverick spend. If the buyer doesn’t care, then there is a personnel issue that needs to be dealt with. If the buyer thinks he has a better deal, why? Lower cost, higher quality, quicker acquisition, or false perception. In the first three cases, the Procurement pro needs to investigate to see if there is a new opportunity she was not aware of, in the last case, an education program is probably required.

While spend is important, it is not the most important thing. Organizations exist to make profit for their shareholders. Profit is revenue minus expenses. That means that profit is increased when spend is decreased, or revenue is increased faster than spend is increased. The best way to to increase revenue faster than spend is to increase value. That’s why value creation, and not spend reduction, is the most important thing.

Savings are not a means to cut budgets — they are a means to find additional revenue for investment into opportunities for future value creation. These days, no department has enough money, and no one has enough money, or time, for training. If budget is freed up, it should be used to invest in training and new technologies, not to blindly increase shareholder dividends.

But these are just a few of the myths. More to come!

Has The Role of Procurement Really Changed?

This spring, Xchanging, one of the four largest Procurement Outsourcing Providers and a provider of Procurement and Sourcing technology (through MM4) released the initial results of its 2015 Global Procurement Study. According to the study, the role of Procurement has changed. It has evolved from a cost saving function to an invaluable strategic partner.

Based on the results of the study, the doctor doesn’t agree. If Procurement is an invaluable strategic partner, the kind that generates value for the organization, then why are the top 4 most important KPIs that Procurement is measured against cost related? And, more specifically, why is cost-savings realized, at 47%, 2.5 times as important as the next most important metric of revenue impact, at a mere 19%. If Procurement was really strategic, should not revenue impact be (almost) as important as cost-savings realized? And, more importantly, why is ROI only the 8th most important metric at 8%?

A truly strategic Procurement function generates value, and value is measured not just as savings (realized), not just (additional) revenue (impact), but overall profit margin, captured in an ROI metric. And not just one that captures savings from outsourcing/technology partners.

Moreover, the rest of the results are not that impressive either.

  • The most common reason for missed objectives is lack of internal engagement.
  • The most important skill set with the greatest perceived skills gap is relationship management.
  • The most common challenge is time pressure, faced by 79% of operations.
  • 59% consider talent shortage a challenge and 13% consider it an extreme challenge.

Procurement is on its way to becoming strategic. The realization that relationship management is key, that skills are needed, that new talent will be required, and that there is never enough time will push the organization to adapt better practices, processes, and technology, and this means that Procurement will evolve and get more strategic over time. However, it’s strategic and value to the overall organization will be limited until the organization measures Procurement more strategically. If a CPO’s bonus, and more importantly, a CPO’s job, depends on hitting an ill-defined cost-savings measure, than that is where the CPO is going to focus, and while doing so, miss out on a number of mid-term and long-term value generation activities that could, over time, take the organization from average to best in class. (There’s a reason that it’s the Hackett Group top 8%, and that’s because very, very few organizations realize what it takes to truly take Procurement to the next level.)

Regardless of the results, Xchanging should be applauded for undertaking this study across 830 Procurement professionals across the US and the EU. Until the C-Suite puts their measurements where their mouth is, the reality must continue to be documented.

A CoE in a CoE? Are we going too far?

SI is all for Centres of Excellence, CoEs, but when he read the recent post over on Spend Matters on “Why Your Procurement Organization Needs a Market Intelligence Centre of Excellence”, one has to wonder if we are taking the CoE concept a bit too far.

Now, the post is not really advocating for a CoE in a CoE, as it is advocating a Market Intelligence Centre of Excellence (a MI CoE) in any organization with over 2 Billion of spend, which is a reasonable suggestion given the importance of market intelligence in Sourcing endeavours, but one has to ask, where is this CoE going to live? Presumably it will live in Procurement. But managing a CoE is no small endeavour. A CoE requires good management practices, and good management practices generally stem from a CoE. In particular, a Procurement CoE should manage the MI CoE. And the net result is we have a MI CoE within the Procurement CoE.

A Procurement CoE should have functional excellence in all of the functional areas relevant to Procurement. It should have excellence in market intelligence, spend analysis, should-cost modelling, sourcing best practices, optimization, contract negotiation and management, order and inventory management, payment management, and procurement project management. But these should not be individual centres of excellence, as many of these activities overlap and support each other and market intelligence supports all, and is supported by all, of them.

The Procurement organization Centre of Excellence should definitely build its Market Intelligence competence up to the level of functional excellence, as that will improve all of its Sourcing and Procurement activities and enable it to realize better results, but it shouldn’t take the CoE concept too far. A CoE in a CoE just gets a little redundant.

World Class Procurement Organizations Are Beginning to Align with the Business

A recent publication from The Hackett Group for Procurement Executives addresses “How Procurement Organizations Are Reinventing the Stakeholder Experience” that looked at world class procurement organizations, which continue to outperform their peer group by a wide margin (by up to 5M in cost savings for a typical company), and found a surprising result.

We’ve known for quite some time that world class Procurement organizations, also known as The Hackett Group Top 8%, outperform their peers. We’ve known that some of these generate savings up to 41% higher than other (laggard) organizations. But we did not know that almost twice as many world class organizations (83% vs. 44%) have dedicated resources that act as liaisons between Procurement and the rest of the business.

As the authors state, raising stakeholder satisfaction levels builds trust and helps procurement gain the organizational permission to take on higher-value work. This is confirmed by the Hackett Group’s database of thousands of benchmarks across hundreds of performance studies which found that organizations that continue to invest in activities that elevate their role to that of a trusted advisor are taken more seriously, especially when they communicate that activity appropriately to the other departments in the organization. Furthermore, when these Procurement organizations are seen as a valued business partner, they generally report 68% higher savings! (This comes by way of an average cost reduction of 3.5% vs. 2.1% and an average cost avoidance of 1.2% vs 0.7%.)

Simply put, world class Procurement organizations have climbed to the top of the hierarchy of supply (which the doctor and the maverick discussed in their piece on “The CPOs Agenda I: Availability and Delivery”), having mastered supply assurance, cost reduction, and demand management. They listen and engage the internal customer, understand the customer’s needs, manage the relationship, offer them a superior service experience, and get better results. They follow all of the best practices the doctor and the maverick have been, and will be, discussing* over on the spendmatters.com/cpo site, and are seeing the return.

* The Agenda series has been broken up into three series:

  • the Conundrum# serieswhich discusses the outside-in issues putting pressure on, and shaping, Procurement
  • the Agenda serieswhich discusses the most pressing objectives on the CPO’s plate that are required to respond to the outside-in issues
  • the Value Drivers serieswhich discusses the primary actions that a CPO can take to realize the objectives on their journey to master the hierarchy of supply

# the doctor‘s terminology