Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

Benchmarks: Blessing or Bane?

Benchmarking, formally defined by Wikipedia as the process of comparing one’s business processes and performance metrics to industry bests and best practices from other companies, are typically presented by consultants as a boon for business managers and a reason to buy their services and/or solutions. After all, if you can’t benchmark, not only do you know how good you are doing (compared to the industry), but you do not know if you are improving or deteriorating, at what rate, and what the potential is.

And all this is true, provided the benchmarks are accurate, apples-to-apples, and actionable. This is not always the case, and when the benchmarks are poorly designed and implemented, definitely not the case. In fact, if the benchmarks are not accurate, they can cost the organization precious time, money, and resources and result in worse, instead of better, performance. And even though you don’t hear about it (as the last thing a Big 6 consultancy wants to do is scare you away from one of their most profitable service offerings — as it takes a long time to design the scorecard, collect the data, and interpret the findings [which translates into a huge number of top dollar billable hours for the House of Lies] — it happens more often than you think, and if you end up being one of the unlucky, you will be cursing benchmarks until the end of your Procurement career (and beyond if the word ever again arises).

the doctor is being dead serious here. Benchmarks (like dashboards) hide at least six serious dangers that can seriously hinder productivity, savings, and innovation. Three of these are very common to internal benchmarks, and three of these are very common to external benchmarks.

One of the most significant dangers of internal benchmarks is hidden opportunities due to false negatives. This often arises when monitoring best-price contracts. A classic example is that of enterprise desktop systems. Considering that technology depreciates the time it hits the market, just like a car depreciates from the time it leaves the lot, the price of these systems should decrease over time. If the benchmark says that the contracted configuration decreased over the 12-month contract by an average of 0.5% a month, for a total decrease of 6%, the buying organization might believe that the vendor is honouring the best-price clause. But if the buying organization isn’t aware that the average depreciation of these systems is 12% to 18% and doesn’t monitor market pricing, the buyer might not know that the pricing should have decreased an average of 1.25% a month, and would have lost 0.75% a month on purchases. If the organization was buying 500 systems a month as part of a phased replacement for 1.5K each, or spending 750,000 a month, that’s a loss of $5,625 a month for a total loss of over $60K, or another help desk resource! (And if all hidden opportunities were this small, it might not be too bad. But this is more of a best-case loss example.)

One of the most significant dangers of external benchmarks is wasted years due to lack of validation. One common example is that of contingent or manual labour spend analysis. For example, consider the analysis of warehouse (contingent) labour across the enterprise. An enterprise could quickly find that its paying, on average, a fully burdened rate of $17 an hour for workers to stuff boxes while its competitors are paying, on average, a fully burdened rate of $14 an hour for workers to stuff boxes. This might lead an analyst to believe that the organization is paying 30% more than it should be and that it should seek out a new contingent labour provider to get costs down, and waste months on RFX and analysis only to find out that the most it can lower its costs from the quotes is 10%. At this point, the analyst might go back and do an analysis of what it would cost to take the labour management back in house (which would require building a Contingent Labour CoE, staffing it, etc.) and still not see a savings when it replaces the outsourced management cost with the internal management costs applied to the total wages paid out. At this point the analyst would give up, or spend even more time investigating the reason only to find out that the organization’s main warehouses are in California, New York, and Massachusetts, the states with the highest minimum wages in the nation, while most of its competitors keep their warehouses in the mid-west / south-west states that only mandate the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (vs. minimum wages north of $10). Benchmarks only capture price and performance tiers, not the realities that led to them.

But these are only two of the six major hidden dangers that can ruin any benchmarking project (and the efforts that they will kick off, for better or worse). For a detailed insight into the other four, download the doctor‘s latest white-paper (sponsored by Trade Extensions) on The Dangers of Benchmarks and Trend Analysis (registration required) today. You need to know these inside out before even looking at a benchmark (which, when improperly constructed and improperly interpreted, can be just as deadly and dangerous as a dashboard).

Claritum – Medicine for the Procurement Soul, Part II

As per part I, while Claritum might sound like the latest miracle drug for the sinus, it’s really the latest miracle drug for Procurement — and when SI says miracle, it’s because, properly used, it really does work.

So what does Claritum cure? As per Part I, Claritum is the cure for SOOM. (SOOM, not VOOM.) Spend Out Of Management. How does it cure this? By providing a platform for spend not typically captured by the traditional Sourcing or Procurement platform so that the spend can become spend under management. This way, unless it’s spend that has to be made off site (at an event, during travel, etc.), or the buyer wants to keep the spend out of the system (because he doesn’t want the preferred product or wants to hide what the spend truly is for as long as possible), it can be made through the system that supports a process to get the right product or service at the right price.

Claritum provides a consumer shopping site solution that can be offered by the organization’s Procurement department, their service provider, or GPO. This shopping solution offers the traditional product catalogs that you will find on consumer sites like Amazon and competing provider catalog sites. It also contains standard rate-card service requisitions that you will find on (contingent and service) labour management platforms. Plus, it contains (the ability to create) template requisitions for all standard tail-spend categories, which can be searched and added to the “cart” as easy as standard catalog items. And, as expected, it contains free-form RFX ability for buyers to requisition anything not already covered. Basically, everything that can be bought through a platform can be bought through the platform and the only spend that should not be captured is on-site T&E spend (tickets for travel can be requisitioned through the platform, and the senior buyer responsible for T&E can process the request, create the PO, and then there is a PO to match the p-Card payment to) and on-site event spend, which should be a very low amount of tail-spend.

Now, this might not sound that special, as providers like IBX and Deem offer a lot of this capability, but this is just the surface of the Claritum platform. First of all, the Claritum platform was designed with multi-organizational use in mind and can be administered by a GPO who manages contracts for multiple clients, who can customize the catalog and offerings to the need of each client individually. Second, the RFX management process, which is tightly integrated into the catalog, is very deep and the requisitions can be set-up to make sure the right requests go to the right buyers and then the right approvers, and the right buyer can select the right suppliers, manage the process, select the winner, and send it back to the requisitioner who can then complete the process (and confirm the need) by adding the award to the cart, and checking out, which sends the request to the proper approver(s). Third, the API allows the platform to be integrated with all organizational ERPs, AP systems, and supplier catalogs, to make sure the right data gets into and out of the system. And fourth, and this sets it apart from all its competitors, it has the ability to manage stock inventory within the platform. Items come from the stock-room (or supplier store-room) first before requests for new shipments are made. And that stock-room inventory, including automatic replenishment rules, can be managed by an internal inventory manager, the GPO, or the vendor, depending on where the stock is located and who is (contractually) required to manage it.

Considering that many big organizations use GPOs or service providers for at least a portion of the tail-spend, it only makes sense to have a platform that can be managed by those same providers for the portion of tail-spend they manage. The Claritum platform is the only one that SI has seen that truly has these three components. The buyer store. The deep sourcing and procurement platform (which can be internal to Procurement, external in the GPO, or managed jointly). And the full featured supplier portal.

So if you want to get your tail spend under management, the doctor recommends that you check out the Claritum platform today. It really is worth a close look, even if you already have a S2P platform, because the extensive API will support integration and the ability to capture organizational spend outside of Procurement is the next big savings opportunity in many organizations. And if you have the choice of platform, Claritum is the one that should be Stuck With You.

Claritum – Medicine for the Procurement Soul, Part I

While Claritum might sound like the latest miracle drug for the sinus, it’s really the latest miracle drug for Procurement — and when SI says miracle, it’s because, properly used, it really does work better than expected.

So what does Claritum cure? SOOM. (Not VOOM, SOOM!) Spend Out Of Management. How does it cure this? Before we can answer that, we have to identify the main types of SOOM.

If Spend Under Management, SUM, is typically spend that is (strategically) sourced or requisitioned/ordered through the e-Procurement system (by way of a catalog, punch-out, requisition, or spot-buy) and tracked then SOOM is, simply put, everything else. What does this everything else look like?

  • maverick spend
  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
  • print/packaging
  • Travel & Expense (T&E)
  • Event
  • MRO
  • Marketing Services
  • Uniforms and Apparel
  • Furniture
  • office products / consumables
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill

Essentially, it is the “tail” spend of the organization (especially if it shows up on the p-Card of a certain executive or salesperson). In an above-average organization, this will typically be 20%-ish of spend. In a below-average organization, with a lot of spend managed by various departments and a lot of maverick spend, this could be 40%-ish of spend.

In other words, SOOM is everything Sourcing hasn’t sourced and Procurement can’t manage. Why can’t Procurement manage the spend? Let’s take the examples one by one.

  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
    there is no RFX template, so the system is just by-passed
  • print/packaging
    thesystem isn’t set up to handle print jobs, so the staff just goes to staples or office depot
  • Travel & Expense
    there is no T&E platform support, so everyone just uses their own credit cards and expenses a month to three later because it’s easier
  • Event
    event management has unique requirements, and so is done offline
  • MRO
    service calls are unplanned, parts are bought as needed, and janitorial supplies are too insignificant for sourcing
  • Marketing Services
    marketing statements of work and account management requires special support, not in a standard RFX, so the tool is again bypassed
  • Uniforms and Apparel
    sizes, colours, etc. aren’t on the standard RFX, and it’s one time, and it’s easier to order through the supplier site, so that happens
  • Furniture
    it’s a one-time buy, so just go to the furniture store, put it on the p-Card
  • office products / consumables
    there’s no simple reorder form, so it’s simple to just have the accounts manager ship and bill you the monthly order and pay on the p-Card
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
    it’s easier to call up the temp labour agency or the consultancy of choice, have them send the resource, and bill you later than try to go through the process
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
    since the system isn’t set up for supplier discovery, you do the web search, have a few chats, find a supplier you feel comfortable with, have them ship the products, send the invoice, and then you instruct AP to pay it upon goods receipt
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill
    for anything non-standard, if the p-Card is accepted, it is easier, especially if it’s spend you want to hide the spend until it’s too late for the organization to do anything about it (and there is a process that allows you to do so)
  • maverick spend
    for anything the buyer wants to break the rules for

In other words, the main reasons Procurement can’t manage the spend are:

  • the buyer doesn’t want the spend managed,
  • the process doesn’t support the spend, or, primarily,
  • the Sourcing and Procurement platform(s) don’t support the spend.

And that’s the kicker. Most platforms have been designed to capture the strategic or high-volume spend and customized to that, following the 80/20 rule under the assumption that most of the savings is in the top 80% which has the volume leverage and supplier relationship leverage. And while this is mostly true, especially since advanced sourcing can save an average of 10%, indicating that there is 8% potential savings, this 8% savings is only achievable over a 3 year timeframe, as most organizations only strategically source about 1/3 of their spend annually. In other words, an average organization repeatedly sourcing the same spend only saves about 3% annually. What goes unnoticed is the bottom 20% of spend which, due to lack of analysis and effort, typically contains an overspend of 10% to 30% (with an average overspend in the 15% range). This is significant. 15% of 20% is 3%, about the same as an organization pushes to the bottom line with strategic sourcing. And this spend is made every year, and this savings, if the spend could be managed, is available every year. If I’m losing out on 50% of my savings, I Want A New Drug!

So if you had a platform designed for this tail spend, which supported the right processes needed by the individuals who contribute to tail spend, most of this spend could be captured. And that’s what the Claritum platform is designed to do – capture all of the tail spend that buyers throughout the organization need to make. How does the Claritum platform do that? Come back for Part II.

Keelvar: The Little Engine that Could

In case you haven’t guessed, this post is about The Little Engine That Could not only get up the big hill, but after scaling the hill, decided to follow the tracks up to Alaska, tackle, and climb, Mount McKinley (also known as Denali), which is the highest mountain in the United States at 6,190.5 meters (or 20,310 feet), and not stop until it reached the summit.

For those of you who missed our prior posts, namely Keelvar: Strange Name. Uncommon Results., Keelvar: Are They Right for You, and Re-introducing Keelvar, An Optimization-Backed Sourcing Platform, Keelvar, which is the newest, and still the smallest entrant, to the strategic sourcing decision optimization game, and one of the few (correction: two) vendors to provide a fully integrated optimization-backed sourcing platform (with integrated RFX and e-Auctions), has been making great strides since it spun-out of the 4C research laboratory (in the Department of Computer Science) at the University College of Cork a mere four years ago in 2012. Since then, it has been advancing faster than all of its peers except Trade Extensions, and has emerged to become a top contender for the provision of optimization-backed sourcing platforms. In fact, as hinted at in an upcoming Pro piece, the doctor expects that Keelvar will grow faster than 4 of its 5 five competitors over the next few years.

So what’s so great about this little upstart? The first thing to note is the ease-of-use of the platform. The platform, which embeds a simple-to-follow seven-step best practice sourcing platform, literally guides even the most junior of buyers through the most complex events the platform can handle, and the side-bar navigation makes it a breeze to quickly access any step in the process. (The tried-and-true best-practice methodology is strikingly similar to what MindFlow used back in the day, but it never had such an easy to use, clean, and modern interface.)

The second thing is the speed of improvement. Since SI last reviewed the platform last fall, a number of considerable of enhancements have been made that go well beyond usability. Extensive supplier self-service has been added (which allows the supplier to manage not only the response and bid process, but the team assigned to it – all the buyer has to do is invite one supplier rep, and that supplier rep can create the supplier organization’s records, add users, give them appropriate, fine-grained read/edit rights to the documents and bids, and manage all of their effort without any buyer involvement whatsoever). Single-sheet smart-load (which allows the platform to detect field-types, field-status, and other relevant information without a user having to define a lot of meta-data or use the cell-based encoding required by other platforms) has been developed. And parametric bidding is in quality assurance.

Parametric bidding is, in a world, cool. Often in the acquisition of fleets, computers, cell phones, etc., the buyer doesn’t precisely know the exact configuration details that are desired until the last minute. In this situation, the buyer has to either create a huge number of potential configurations for bidding, or pick a few and hope for the best. With parametric bidding, the supplier can bid on a base configuration and define all of the options they offer against that configuration as well as the price increments (or decrements) for that option. When the final configurations are selected, the system will automatically calculate the appropriate costs (and discounts) from the parametric sheet for the optimization model, with no effort at all required by the user. This is a feature that is jut not seen in first generation sourcing platforms. Watch for it.

Keelvar, which was first named as a SpendMatters company to watch last year (and which will soon be covered in depth on Pro by the doctor and the public defender), is a company that you should be keeping a really close eye on. Optimization-backed sourcing platforms are the future. and right now there are one of only two providers with a single, integrated, end-to-end, solution. We may see more in the future (with BravoSolution working on integrating its two product lines, SciQuest’s acquisition of CombineNet, and Determine’s acquisition of Selectica), but Keelvar (and Trade Extensions) have an early lead that gets larger every day their competitors work on integration (as opposed to innovation).

Now, you’re probably worried about adoption, because first generation platforms were, for the most part, so damn hard to use (to put it bluntly), but second generation optimization-backed sourcing platforms are actually quite easy to use and focussed around adoption. For more information on how to get Higher Adoption, check out the linked white-paper. And for more information on Keelvar, we recommend checking out their new, open, Keelvar support portal.

Sales Vs. Procurement: Who Wins Control Over Your Next Sourcing Initiative?


Today’s guest post is from Brian Seipel, an information technology and marketing Project Analyst at Source One Management Services.

A while back, I had a chance to discuss why best-in-class suppliers may be, shall we say, less than enthused about the RFP you just released. I’d like to take a moment to move away from such 3-foot concerns of RFP development and address the 30,000 foot concern: Sales’ impression of Procurement’s involvement in the overarching decision-making process. It isn’t a secret that both sides are wary of each other. The name of the game is often winning out over the other side for control of the sourcing initiative.

Procurement’s value to an organization hinges on the ability to get the right solution in place at the right price point as quickly as possible. Sales can help us do this, or throw up barriers that make this goal harder to reach. I propose Procurement pros extend the olive branch and work towards bringing Sales into the equation as partners. There’s too much to gain not to — Sales teams that recognize their place as allies rather than adversaries can deliver better targeted solutions more quickly, and be willing to negotiate more readily.

Good News and Bad News

Most Procurement/Sales relationships can be described as a tenuous, “OK-but-not-great” alliance borne of necessity. The groundwork for forming true partnerships is there, but often not capitalized on. In other words, I have some good news and bad news for you.

Good news! Both sides are in an excellent position to understand end user needs, and know how the market can address them.
Bad news… Sales is often skeptical of Procurement’s willingness to share crucial insider information about needs or plans future development — let alone allow Sales to interface with end users.Good news! When Procurement engages in open dialogue, Sales can be leveraged as a business partner, suggesting otherwise unconsidered solutions that can benefit an organization greatly.
Bad news… However, Sales rarely looks to connect with procurement in the first place, opting instead to look elsewhere in an organization for points of contact, killing such dialogue before it begins.

Good news! Both sides have the ability recognize Total-Cost-of-Ownership and Total-Value as critical long-term.
Bad news… However, as the consequences of the problems manifest, the sourcing process is often derailed — Procurement seeks the lowest cost and Sales fights for the highest revenue. The end result may be a solution not as tailored to the end users’ needs as it should be.

Working Together

Communication is key — when Sales tries to avoid interacting with Procurement or tries to skirt sourcing processes, it is because they aren’t getting the info they need. While there are reasons to remain in control of the process,

  • open up communication, but stay in charge.
    When Procurement brings key stakeholders to the table to interface with Sales, Sales doesn’t feel the need to go behind Procurement’s back or otherwise work to undermine process. Build opportunities for such communication into projects, such as open Q&A sessions wherein sales teams review the goals and scopes of work with end users in a controlled environment. Sales will be less frustrated, and will turn around proposals that are both more targeted and more timely.
  • Process is important; make sure everyone understands why.
    Set out the purpose and goals of the initiative early, and lay out key milestone dates. Let Sales know exactly what the timeline is, what deliverables are due, when negotiations will take place, and when it’s time to put best prices forward or risk exclusion. Make sure everyone is on board internally as well. Be sure to let internal stakeholders know that communication during Q&A sessions is encouraged, but communication in other situations is not — have them direct any communication from sales to you if that communication doesn’t occur in a prearranged time and place.
  • Factor in shades of grey.
    When Procurement insists that every aspect of a proposal can and should be commoditized, focusing only on lowest common denominators to compare suppliers, Sales will fight back. When Sales insists that their solution is too unique and its value too complex to fit into an RFP, Procurement fights back. Both sides are right and wrong, because sourcing isn’t black and white. Procurement does need to factor in intangibles while striving to show why breaking down costs, when appropriate, is necessary to compare competing solutions.

Procurement’s Best Frenemy

Sales goes behind Procurement’s back because Procurement hides key details and stakeholders behind walls and gatekeepers. Procurement throws up bigger, tougher barriers knowing in advance that Sales will try to circumvent them. Being open and honest about the steps above is Procurement’s best bet for putting a cease fire in place.

It can be all too easy to view Sales as an enemy when sales professionals go out of their way to buck the system. But when we step back and consider their motivations for doing so, we see not only simple ways to keep everyone working towards the same goal, but also potential for improving the outcomes of sourcing initiatives by bringing together experts on both sides of the table.

Thanks, Brian.