Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

With Great Data Comes Great Opportunity!

In fact, it can quadruple your ROI from a major suite.

Not long ago, Stephany Lapierre posted that your team may only be realizing <50% of the ROI from your Ariba or Coupa investment, to which, of course, my response was:

50% of value on average? WOW!

Let’s break some things down.

A suite will typically cost 4X a leaner mid-market offering which is often enough even for an enterprise just starting it’s Best in Class journey (that will take at least 8 years, as per Hackett group research in the 2000s).

Moreover, even if the enterprise can make full use of the suite it buys for 4X, at least 80% of the “opportunity” comes from just having a good process, technology, baseline capability and automation behind it. That says you’re paying 4X to squeeze an additional 20% worth of opportunity in the best case.

On average, it takes 2 to 3 years to implement a suite (on a 3 to 5 year deal). So maybe you’re seeing an average of 66% functionality over the contract duration.

As Stephany pointed out, bad data leads to

  • increased supplier discovery and management times
  • invoice processing delays and errors
  • increased risk and decreased performance insight

As well as an

  • inability to take advantage of advanced (spend) analytics
  • inability to build detailed optimization models
  • decreased accuracy in cost modelling and market prediction

This is even more problematic! Why? These are the only technologies found to deliver year-over-year 10%+ savings! (This is where the extra value a suite can offer comes from, but only with good data. Otherwise, at most half of the opportunity will be realized.)

Thus, one can argue an average organization is only getting 66% of 25% of 80% of its investment against peers (based on 2/3rd functionality, the 4X suite cost, and the baseline savings available from a basic mid-market application that instills good process and cost intelligence) and 50% of 20% (as it is able to take advantage of at most half of the advanced functionality offered by the suite due to poor and incomplete data). In other words, at the end of the day, we’d argue an average company is only realizing 23% of the potential value from an opportunity perspective!

However, as one should rightly point out, the true value of a suite is not the value you get on the base, it’s the ROI on that extra spend that allows for 20% more opportunity than a customer can get from lesser peer ProcureTech solutions.

For example, let’s say you are a company with 1B of spend with a 100M opportunity.

If tackling 20M of that opportunity requires advanced analytics, optimization, and extensive end-to-end data, it’s likely that you’ll never see that with an average mid-market solution with limited analytics, no optimization, and only baseline transactional data. If the company paid an extra 1.5M over 3 years for this enhanced functionality, then the ROI on that is 13X, which is definitely worth it.

Moreover, if the suite supports the creation of enhanced automations, you could get more throughput per employee and realize the base 80M with half or one quarter of the workforce, which would lead to a lowering of the HR budget that more than covers the baseline cost.

However, ALL of this requires great data, advanced capability, and the in-house knowledge to use both. This is only the case in the market leaders. As a result, we’d argue that the majority of clients are only realizing about 25% of the suite’s potential — when sometimes the only thing standing in their way of realizing the rest is good data.

Why Your Standard Sourcing Solution Doesn’t Work For Direct

Too many of you have been there. You sign that seven figure deal for that end-to-end Source-to-Pay suite, spend another seven figures and 18 months integrating with the ERP, PLM, AP, BI and existing Legal CR solutions, and then try to source your first NPI project natively only to … fail. Why is that?

They just weren’t built for direct.

And it’s not just something you can add in later. If the platform wasn’t designed from the ground up for direct sourcing, there’s zero chance it will ever do a decent job at it. (And, FYI, the majority of the S2P suites the big analyst firms are drooling over in their annual quadrants and waves started out as simple indirect Sourcing or Procurement tools.) People who don’t understand the nature of software don’t get this, but software has to be constructed like a building. You might hear vendors and techies throw around MVC model, which stands for Model-View-Controller, when they talk about how new and well architected their solution is, but that just means it’s built in a maintainable web-friendly way for what, and only what, it was initially designed to do.

It all comes down to the data model and the software architecture of the controller, and neither can be a black box. The data model has to be designed from the ground up to support bill of materials and direct sourcing and procurement data requirements. The controller has to provide the infrastructure to support the complexity of the application that is required. For those who don’t understand software, I like to put it this way. If you pour the foundation for a two story house, and buy wooden beams for all of your structure and supports, you can’t build a 10 story apartment building. You need a foundation for an apartment building and steel and concrete supports. (Even though you can theoretically build a 10-story structure on a two-story foundation if you have the right steel and supports, it won’t be stable. The slightest tremor on the Richter scale [which might not even be detectable by a human] or a strong wind will send it crashing down.) You need both. And just like you can’t replace the foundation under a building or replace the entire support structure in real life, you can’t do the same in code. You have to rebuild, usually from scratch.

So why weren’t they built for direct? Well, there are a number of reasons (besides they wanted to get a product to market fast and/or just weren’t smart enough to build a direct sourcing solution). They include:

  1. direct material sourcing is hard
  2. substitution is not guaranteed
  3. demand aggregation is not straight forward
  4. delivery time guarantees and on-time arrival is significantly more important

To understand these, and learn about the rest of the reasons the majority of sourcing solutions were not built for direct, dive into Standard Sourcing Technology Solutions Don’t Work for Direct – Part One and Standard Sourcing Technology Solutions Don’t Work for Direct – Part 2 over on Supply Chain Matters.

Do You Have Continuous Cost Control?

If not, you should, because with tariffs rising, markets falling, inflation out of control, sales dropping (as entire markets are cut off with sanctions and trade wars), we’ve gone beyond the point where every dollar counts to the point where every penny counts on every purchase because those pennies add up as every 100 purchases is a dollar and every 100,000 purchases is $1,000 and when money is as tight as it is now, that is actually value (especially for an organization making millions of purchases a year).

And right now, organizations are wasting a lot of dollars through the entire purchasing process. From poor sourcing strategy and process, to poor sourcing and negotiation, through poor purchasing execution, and poorer logistics management, to poor invoice and payment management. Every step without good cost control adds cost to the process, at a time when you need to be taking cost out just to survive.

And we know organizations are losing across the board because the following is required to keep costs in control:

  • good processes at each step
  • (near) real time market intelligence at each step
  • good systems supporting each step
  • continuous monitoring at each stage

And we’ve never seen an organization, even a best-in-class organization, that has all of this for their Procurement department. In fact, it’s rare to find an organization that has more than half of this. It’s now at the point where your organization may not survive if it does not have:

  • well defined processes for
    • supplier discovery and management
    • sourcing
    • contract award and management
    • procurement, on-and-off contract
    • invoice management and accounts payable
    • logistics and warehousing
    • ongoing analysis
  • (near) real-time market intelligence at each step
    • current, financially stable, accessible suppliers
    • current commodity costs, average overhead costs by region, tariffs, etc.
    • current best practices, standard clauses, and insurable risks
    • market availability, quality, delivery times, remaining contractual commitments
    • current entity information, payment terms, standard processing times, community intelligence on supplier OTD
    • carrier availability, costs, surcharges, etc.
    • changes in spend trends and curves, etc.
  • good systems/modules supporting each step
    • supplier 360 module (not just SIM/SRM/SPM .. all supplier data and interactions)
    • sourcing (RFX) management
    • contract negotiation tracking, signing, and ongoing management
    • e-Procurement that supports ALL purchases through the system
    • I2P with automated invoice processing and workflows
      (85% should be touchless on implementation, 95%+ over time)
    • logistics booking and carrier monitoring
    • best in class spend and performance analysis that updates at least daily
      (and regularly re-runs best-in-class trend and outlier analysis and alerts you to unexpected changes)
  • … with built-in alerting when something unexpected happens or doesn’t happen on schedule / as expected

And you don’t. But you need this now more than ever. So, if you don’t have:

  • processes, define them; they can be basic to start; for example, classic 7-step sourcing is enough to start (even though there are some more refined 11 step processes)
  • market intelligence, get yourself some; in particular, supplier discovery as some of your suppliers will go out of business, be unreachable, or get too expensive in the days to come; cost modelling for major spend categories to understand true costs for better negotiations because even if it only shaves half a percentage point on average, that’s still 500K on a 1M category (and you can get some of these solutions for under 100K a year), and those hundreds of thousands quickly add up to millions; and major news/event monitoring to pinpoint emerging risks as fast as possible
  • modules supporting the entire S2P process, acquire them; note that most of these don’t need to be BiC; for example, all of the major suites will tout the tens or hundreds of millions their big customers have “saved” with their solution, but what they won’t tell you is that at least 90% of that savings simply resulted from the client implementing a good process supported by a tool with a decent workflow solution; in other words, you don’t need the multi-million dollar solution (to start), you’ll see the same benefit from a six figure suite that is better than average in the key modules that matter to you (especially since it will take you years to master the new processes it will support, meaning that for a big suite, it’s usually five years or more before you can see more value than just going with a basic solution given that the journey to Best in Class, as determined by Hackett in the mid moughts, is at least eight years)
  • continuous data modelling and analysis, start now; with your spend analysis and performance tool updated at least daily

you need to make a plan to incrementally acquire what you are missing, most critical need first, until you do. (Remember, don’t try a big bang implementation. No matter what the vendor or Big X will tell you, those always end in big booms.)

Stop Being Clueless. It’s Time for Revenge of the Nerds!

Last week we tried to further demystify the marketing madness for you by clarifying that spend orchestration is essentially Clueless for the popular kids.

This is really important because there is no difference between a “spend” orchestration and a plain old “regular” orchestration provider, and neither provides any value whatsoever if you don’t have any spend management (i.e. procurement) systems in place to actually process the spend. Otherwise, the best you get is intake to nowhere … which just provides your stakeholders yet another avenue to ask “where’s my stuff” and another reason to say “I thought this new system was supposed to make you more efficient” and get more impatient when their stuff doesn’t arrive any faster.

In other words, unless you have a hodge-podge of best-of-breed systems that cover most, if not all, of the source-to-pay process, that don’t interconnect, and the systems are old and don’t support multiple roles (or charge full license fees for each user, even a 99% read-only role, that access the users), there is no value in an orchestration, as we’ve said many times (including in our post on how Marketplace Madness is Coming.

What you need is not spend orchestration but spend defenestration — you need to throw any and all unnecessary spend out of the window, and that requires spend investigation, need verification, negotiation, observation, and payment verification. That requires spend analysis, demand forecasting and management, fact-based market insight, adherence to contracts and plans, proper procurement platforms, and proper payment validation platforms.

Moreover, it requires proper utilization of these platforms. And that requires Human Intelligence (HI!), skill, and deep (deep) Procurement knowledge. Geek skill and Procurement nerdiness. The nerdiness to use a best-in-class spend analysis and seek out the opportunity that a pre-packaged analytics routine will never find (because you’ve already stared at that report ten times and found nothing after the second time [wonder why?]). The nerdiness to examine the forecasts and use best-in-class forecasting techniques on real (and up-to-date) sales and market demand data. The nerdiness to pour through market cost data for materials, standard overhead costs, energy costs, water costs, differential costs for different production models, and cost models presented to you by third parties and the supplier to pinpoint the right the model, the right data to feed it with, and the true production cost at different volume levels — and then use this in a fact-based market data negotiation. Then, when you cut an agreement, the nerdiness to make sure it is encoded in the right systems and properly executed on as well as the nerdiness to follow the market over time and detect any inflections that would require you to change direction. And, finally, the nerdiness to make sure the platform is configured to properly m-way match every invoice, detect any attempts to fraudulently change the amount, terms, and payee, and only pay for goods and services received on the agreed upon schedule. In other words, if you want to truly succeed at Procurement, forget about the Clueless — It’s time for the Revenge of the Nerds!

Sourcing Success in these Turbulent Times Require Long Term Planning and Cost Concessions

This originally posted on January 2 (2024).  This is being reposted, in case you missed it, due to the rising criticality of Long Term Planning!

In a McKinsey article a few months back on How medium-size enterprises can better manage sources, McKinsey said that small and medium-size enterprises often struggle to find Procurement cost savings. Yet there are ways to do it while still pursing growth and providing a superior customer experience. The article, which concluded with an action plan for procurement cost savings, recommended:

  • establishing CoE teams
  • improving forecasting
  • expanding (the) use of digital procurement tools
  • gaining greater market intelligence
  • establishing a culture of — and process for — continuous cost improvement
  • incorporating supplier-driven product improvements

which, of course, are all great suggestions, and mostly address four of the five reasons that McKinsey give that prevent companies from reining in spending, which included

  • a lack of spending transparency (which would have to be corrected to improve forecasting)
  • talent gaps (which can be minimized with the right tools, market intelligence, and CoE teams)
  • underused digital tools and automation (which is directly addressed by using more of them)
  • exclusion of procurement and supply chain in business decision (which would hopefully be a byproduct of a corporate culture for continuous cost improvement that only happens when procurement and supply chain is not involved higher up)

but the fifth is largely unaddressed — the myopic focus on the short term which McKinsey claims could be addressed by putting more effort into planning and forecasting. But that doesn’t solve the problem.

Better forecasting will allow for longer contracts to be signed for higher volumes, which can lead to long term strategic supplier relationships, and better planning can allow this to happen, but this does not completely address the need for long term planning.

Supply Chains today are not the supply chains of the last ten to twenty years.

  • rare earths are even rarer
  • many critical raw materials are in increasingly limited or short supply
  • transportation can be unpredictable in availability and cost; even though most of the world declared COVID over in mid-2022, China still had mandatory lockdowns, ocean carriers scrapped many of their ships for insurance (and in some cases, post-panamax ships that had never made a single voyage), airlines furloughed too many pilots who found other jobs or just flat out retired, and the long-haul trucking in North America (the UK, and many first-world countries) has been on a steady decline for over a deacde
  • ESG/GHG/Carbon Requirements are escalating around the globe and you need to be in compliance (both in terms of reporting 1/2/3 and ensuring you don’t exceed any caps)
  • human/labour rights are escalating and you have to be able to trace compliance down to the source in some jurisdictions; you need suppliers who insist on the same visibility that you do
  • diversity is important not just to meet arbitrary requirements for government programs or arbitrary internal goals, but to ensure you have the right insight and expertise to solve all types of problems that might arise

And you can’t effectively address any of these problems unless you think long term AND accept that some of the solutions will cost more up front.

  • In mid November, the trading price for Neodymium (a rare-earth that is critical for the creation of strong permanent magnets, which makes it possible to miniaturize many electronic devices, including the [smart]phone you might be reading this on) was over $87,000 USD/mt. In comparison, hot roll steel was around $850 USD/mt. In other words, Neodymium was 100 times more expensive than steel. And while you can still buy steel for about the same price you could 10 years ago (it was around $900 USD/mt), Neodynmium is almost $20,000 more (as it was around $69,000 USD/mt in November 2013). It’s not the only rare earth to increase about 26% in 10 years, with further increases on the horizon. You need to have a strategy to minimize your need (which could include product redesigns that use more sustainable alternatives or recycling strategies that use recovered materials from older phone models). And when it comes to recycled materials, due to a historical lack of recycling efforts, or research into technologies to make recycling efficient and cost effective, recycled materials are almost always more expensive at first. Always. But as adoption increases, plants, technologies, and processes get more efficient, and the cost goes down (while, at the same time, raw material prices for materials in limited supply continue to go up). In other words, if you want to mitigate the ever-increasing costs for rare earths and other materials that are in limited supply, you have to incorporate the use of recycled materials, and maybe even invest in your own plants (and recycle your own phones you buy back because it’s cheaper just to buy them back and extract the rare earths yourself than buy the recycled rare earths from someone else).
  • Global trade is costly and unpredictable. Supply assurance is finally dictating near-sourcing and home-sourcing (which SI has been advocating for almost fifteen years, as inevitable disaster was the logical conclusion of outsourcing everything to China as eventually a pandemic, global spat, natural disaster, or other event would send shockwaves through the world when it severely disrupted the trade routes [because even though the chances of a pandemic, natural disaster on the scale of Krakatoa or the Valdivia earthquake, or another catastrophic event is minimal in any given year, over the course of a century, it becomes very likely]), and that is going to require re-investing in those Mexican factories (that worked just fine, by the way) you shut down twenty years ago, training appropriately skilled workers in low cost North American (or Eastern Europe) locales, and paying a bit more per unit (and even transportation until the carriers rebuild those routes). But in the long term, as global transportation costs continue to rise, and the local-ish resources get much more efficient (using the best technology we have to offer), your costs, and transportation risks, will go down while your competitor costs continue to go up.
  • if you don’t insist, and ensure, up front that your suppliers can report the data you need, how will you get it; chances are those suppliers need help and modern systems, which temporarily increase their operational costs as they install, integrate, and learn the systems; not more than a few cents here and there per unit, but a noticeable blip on the overall costs none-the-less
  • if you want suppliers that monitor their supply chain and insist on no slave/forced/child labour, appropriately treated and well paid labour, and, better yet, a community focus throughout the supply chain (so that the humans who mine the materials, harvest the food stuffs, weave the silk, or otherwise do the foundational work have a reasonable quality of life, health, and safety), you’re going to have to put the effort in to find them and the extra money to support them in their humanitarian efforts; since most of these workers in remote low-cost locales are paid pennies on your dollar, it’s another blip on the total cost to ensure they are paid every penny they deserve, but it’s still a blip; but you can’t afford not to do it if your jurisdiction has laws making you responsible for slave labour that later gets discovered in your supply chain
  • and while diversity shouldn’t cost more, since it’s the same number of employees, the reality is that the supply base embracing it could be a minority, and if these minority suppliers suddenly become in demand, market dynamics may kick in and they may charge a premium that your competitor will pay; but, as new challenges continue to arise, you will need the diversity to solve them; so, another blip in the cost you need to absorb

In other words, you need the long term focus to guarantee success, and you need to understand that, up front, it may cost a bit more. However, done right, your costs will decrease over time while your competitors’ costs skyrocket. So if you truly want success, in any high dollar, strategic, or emerging category, plan for the long term. And you will truly succeed.