supplier

Is Procurement Ready to Say Good-Bye to the Spreadsheet?

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

(Featured Image from Microsoft website.)

Yesterday, June 27th, I ran across an interesting tweet. Jon Hansen (@piblogger1) tweeted the following:

I wholeheartedly agree with Jon. In this age of blockchain and and small app startups disrupting almost every industry you would think that procurement, and supply chain in general, would be ready to part ways with spreadsheets.

But are we?

An article from Robert Half reports that 63% of U.S. companies still rely on excel spreadsheets. And a Small Business Trends reports shows that 84% of Small Businesses rely on excel!

This comes as no surprise for a number of reasons:

  1. Spreadsheets are cheap or free. A small business needing to keep costs down can get Microsoft Office for the low price of $10 or so a month, or just utilize Google Spreadsheets for free. OpenOffice is another free offering that has a program just like excel. The list of free alternatives goes on.
  2. Spreadsheets is easy. I don’t care who you are, spreadsheets is easy to learn. And once learned, spreadsheets can be utilized to do a plethora of things. Organize data, create charts and tables, analyze said data and charts/tables. Even an iota of training can lead an employee to create a generally acceptable presentation of data. Want to learn more about how to do things in spreadsheets? There are a number of excellent free online resources, or you can pay for a book, or even pay for an advanced class at your local community college. Big solutions providers? Not so much.
  3. Current ERP/WMS haven’t done a good job creating a viable replacement for spreadsheets. Despite SAP, Oracle, Coupa and others making great strides, the numbers I cited above speak for themselves. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)/Work Management Systems (WMS)/etc. do not provide enough of a solution to effectively unseat the spreadsheet.

I have personal experience in this area.

The company I used to work for had used an industry specific WMS for decades. Spreadsheets were the norm for day-to-day operations. As I left, the company I worked for was beginning the long road to a major upgrade of the WMS. But when asked about spreadsheets and additional functionalities, the WMS supplier replied that the company would still need to utilize spreadsheets.

Two small businesses I’ve worked with in the Greater Omaha Metropolitan area use spreadsheets for 80-100% of their operations. One of the businesses effectively has a WMS at their disposal, but that only covers a small fraction of what they need to track, and the WMS doesn’t connect with the business owner’s bank account. Enter spreadsheets. The other small business is just starting up, and there is zero dollars in the budget for even NetSuite by Oracle. Spreadsheets fill that void.

Conclusion

I think, as do many others within supply chain and procurement, that it’s time to say good-bye to spreadsheets. It’s 2019, after all.

But, then again, we were supposed to have flying cars and cities on Mars by this point…

Maybe someone will come along and create that perfect ERP that finally replaces the spreadsheet.

Consulting

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

Last Friday I had the amazing opportunity to do consulting in the Omaha Metro Area.

The client was a start-up gym looking to better manage their inventory of supplements (collagen peptides, protein, etc.) and workout equipment (knee sleeve, wrist wraps, etc.).

It wasn’t anything high end. No C-Suite meetings. No hundred dollar steak dinners.

Just one hour with some Bulletproof Coffee while working on spreadsheets at Whole Foods.

I built them a spreadsheet to manage their inventory, forecast their demand, determine their economic order quantity, safety stock, and order point. All the while I explained the math and basic principles behind it what I had built. In the end I offered my continued availability.

Now the gym is better prepared to deal with its increasing demand for supplements and equipment. Of course, as they grow they’ll need better software than just an excel spreadsheet.

But I got them started on the right track.

*

If you’re a start-up or small business looking to improve your supply chain, shoot me an email and set up a free introductory consultation: meybestprocurement@gmail.com.

Supply Chain Flywheel

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

In February Jim Collins came out with the small book “Turning the Flywheel: A Monograph to Accompany Good to Great“.

In it, Collins discusses the Flywheel concept, and how organizations like Amazon and a failing school on a military base leveraged the Flywheel concept, and made it their own to become GREAT.

I first heard about it on the Tim Ferriss Show. During the interview, Jim Collins discussed the monograph, how it applied to businesses, departments, and even our personal lives.

I shared that portion of the podcast (starting at 1:40:00 or so) with a colleague, and together we built the flywheel for our Supply Chain Division at the company I worked for.

The Supply Chain Flywheel

Here is the Flywheel we came up with.

  • Increased Stakeholder Engagement
  • Quality Scope of Work
  • Better Market Position
  • Better Market Relations
  • Reduced Total Cost of Ownership
  • Increased Stakeholder Buy-In

As described by Jim Collins, each step in the Flywheel cannot but help cause the next step.

Increased stakeholder engagement cannot help but lead to a better quality scope of work. A better quality scope of work cannot help but lead to a better market position. A better market position cannot help but create better market relations. Better market relations cannot help but reduce the total cost of ownership of the materials/services being sourced. Reduced total cost of ownership cannot help but lead to increased stakeholder buy-in. Increased stakeholder buy-in cannot help but lead to increased stakeholder engagement…

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Doom Loop

The Doom Loop, of course, is the exact opposite, and each step in the Doom Loop feeds the next.

  • Decreased Engagement
  • Poor Scope of Work
  • Poor Market Position
  • Poor Market Relations
  • Increased TCO
  • Reduced Stakeholder Buy-In

Conclusion

Supply Chain/procurement should strive to reach the flywheel described here and, of course, improve upon it. Maybe there’s an additional step your team or department needs to add. Try and develop it.

And if you do need a hand to start your flywheel, the MEYBEST Procurement Solutions: Strategic Sourcing Training is a great place to start.

Should Procurement Just Get Out Of The Way?

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

I recently read an article whose author stated that procurement “should just get out of the way” of stakeholders.

This is a surprise from my perspective. Articles over the past few years, and my personal experience, have shown that procurement and stakeholders need to work closer together. This article seemed to recommend the opposite.

The Idea

It may seem that, too often, procurement gets in the way of work being completed.

Procurement should provide information to the stakeholders, and ensure the procurement process is as smooth as possible. The result of a sourcing event should allow the stakeholder who requires the service/material to get what they need when they need it.

In the most recent project I worked on for vehicle parts for the Transportation Department of the company I work for, it was the stakeholder who told us what they needed. Then, it was my team and I that sought out current and new suppliers, set-up supplier workshops, and worked with the stakeholder to craft a detailed scope of work.

With the award to the now strategic supplier (the supplier who was awarded the business had been one of ten suppliers previously used), the stakeholder is able to order what they need online through the supplier’s website.

But my team and I aren’t stepping away. We are tracking supplier performance against agreed upon key performance indicators (KPIs), dealing with stakeholder/supplier issues, and conducting semi-regular benchmarking of pricing on small selections of parts to keep the supplier honest and competitive.

The Risk

The risk is that when procurement “gets out of the way” spend returns to the unmanaged state it was before. Instead of a handful of strategic suppliers, stakeholders go to whomever they see fit. The synergies and savings created by procurement are lost.

You want to avoid this situation.

So, while procurement should streamline things for their stakeholders as much as possible, procurement should never just “get out of the way”.

 

Will Amazon Be Your Sole Source Supplier?

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

(Image © Amazon Logistics)

The recent trend in procurement and supply chain is consolidating suppliers as much as possible. This gains the organization volume discounts for materials and services, increases the organization’s negotiating power due to the amount of spend, and it removes the administrative burden of managing and communicating. While not all companies can sole source with a single supplier, many work down to two or three in a range of categories.

But have you considered utilizing Amazon as your sole source supplier?

On October 23rd, Amazon announced new Business Prime Benefits for organizations in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. These new benefits include:

  • Spend Visibility
  • Guided Buying
  • Amazon Business American Express Card
  • Extended Terms for Pay by Invoice
  • Upgraded Shipping Options

Where many business may buy from a major distributor, Amazon is set to be that distributor and compete with companies like Genuine Parts Company (think NAPA Auto Parts) and Grainger. Customers don’t have to deal with a dozen or more different suppliers. They find what they need on and buy through Amazon, and can even set policies and limits for their organization’s buyers.

Amazon is looking to make it as easy and transparent as possible. From the Amazon Business blog:

“Amazon Business Spend Visibility allowed me to perform several functions that would otherwise have been manually performed and incredibly time consuming,” said Chris Vanderbilt, Procurement Director at Alterra Mountain Company, who owns and operates more than a dozen ski resorts across North America. For example, to identify purchases out of compliance, Chris would have to download a transaction list from their procurement card provider, request info from specific users, and spot check purchases. Now, using Amazon Business Spend Visibility, he can quickly run a category spend analysis and identify non-compliant purchases across multiple companies and users.

You can learn more about Amazon Business Prime here.

Many people know about all the different markets Amazon has entered, such as publishing, audiobooks, and cloud servers. But now Amazon isn’t just working to compete with bookstores or MRO distributors, they are also moving to compete with the likes of FedEx and UPS.

In 2016 it was reported that Amazon was quietly building its own shipping company. That escalated this year with Amazon’s announcement that it would help entrepreneurs start their own package shipping companies. For about $10,000 (and some vetting) you can start your own Amazon package delivery company with vehicles and uniforms to match, as well as Amazon technology to track your workforce and deliveries.

This move is two-fold: Amazon now has full control of its small parcel shipping, while putting it in direct competition with shipping giants FedEx and UPS.

What are the implications of all of this? Market shake-ups in MRO/tools/parts and parcel shipping. Suppliers on Amazon will be driven to be more price conscious in order for Amazon Business customers to choose their product and price over the competitor, driving down prices (unless a supplier markets more on quality).

And could it mean that one day your business or organization may use Amazon as a sole source supplier?



Tariffs and the Supply Chain

Christopher Meyer 1 Comment

Plenty has been written on the ongoing tit-for-tat with Trump’s tariff’s on China; the news cycle can’t get enough. And in three days, tariffs take effect on $200 billion worth of imports from China should the U.S. and China be unable to come to an agreement.

I’ll let the political pundits discuss whether this is good or bad.

What I’m interested in is: How does this effect the supply chain? And I’m not just talking the prices of goods. What about logistics, supplier choices, and make or buy decisions? What’s to be done in such turbulent times? How should risk management be addressed?

Cost of Goods

With the imposition of 25% steel tariffs and 11% aluminum tariffs earlier this year, the prices of steel and aluminum have jumped upwards of 18%. While the steel companies are enjoying the profits, the rest of U.S. companies that utilize these resources, such as automobile, motorcycle, and technology (hardware) companies are seeing costs rising, some as high as 50%.

The additional 10% tariffs on $200 billion worth of goods will effect companies and consumers even more. Items on this new list include: meat, fish and seafood, fruits and nuts, beverages and vinegars, ores, slag, and ash, rubber, textiles, and machinery, just to name a few. A more comprehensive list can be found here.

I currently work in the utilities (energy) industry, and the effects of tariffs are already hitting our transformers, steel poles, vehicles, and some motors. Specifically, we recently sourced a specialized trailer that has a motor on it for pulling shipping containers (connexes, sealands) up onto it. For whatever reason these specific motors only came from China, and with the tariffs the company in China wouldn’t ship to the U.S. Our supplier had to go through a European company to source the motors from China, hiking up the price 30% compared to what we normally pay.

This brings us to our next topic. . .

Logistics

With tariffs come challenges in logistics. Products from China are going to cost more, and some companies are making decisions not to ship certain products directly to the U.S. (see my trailer example above).

It’s not just the goods purchased, but the shipping of those goods that have gone up. With tariffs comes an increase in cost of shipping those goods. Ships from other countries are held in port longer, delaying delivery, and increasing labor costs. Even the railroads in the U.S. are seeing an increase in costs due to tariffs from Mexico and Canada. When looking at total cost of ownership, companies are going to be looking at how tariffs effect shipping, and will have to make decisions based on those numbers.

Supplier Choices

Both cost of goods and logistical challenges are going to effect supplier choices by companies in the United States. For example, if Company A is going to pay the same price for steel and aluminum from China as they do in the U.S., but the steel and aluminum from China has a tariff on it, Company A is going to begin purchasing those resources from U.S. companies, or at least from companies in countries where there are no or much lower tariffs.

A simple example of this is the steel industry example given above. If I have to buy steel, I might as well buy it from a company in the U.S., despite the higher cost, because there will be no tariffs imposed on it. The same will go for many of items on the list of new tariffs being levied.

And what if the goods being shipped to the U.S. only come from China? Then companies, and their consumers, may have to live with much higher prices which include the cost of tariffs. Or. . .

Make-or-Buy

With tariffs and the costs of certain goods rising, companies may begin to revisit make-or-buy decisions.

Make-or-buy decisions are exactly what they sound like. Does the company make the product in-house, or do they buy it/outsource it from another company. With tariffs on certain goods and costs of those goods rising, some companies may be compelled to begin to produce more in-house instead of outsourcing.

This is an interesting turn of events as our current economy is a by-product of companies selling off assets they once owned to produce everything in-house. Decades ago companies like Ford used to own steel mills and smaller factories that made everything in support of producing cars. These companies then spun off or sold these assets to focus on what they were good at; in the case of Ford it was building cars, not managing the mining and refining of steel.

My opinion is that I doubt we’ll ever return to the level of “make” seen prior to the 1970’s/80’s. It just doesn’t make economic sense in most cases. (This is an unsubstantiated statement, and some economist or financial guy out there may prove me wrong, but there it is.) But more companies will have to take a hard look at how they produce their products, and make-or-buy decisions will be part of that decision making process.

Of course, a third option is companies do redesigns of their products or entire offerings so they include less or no goods coming from countries which have these tariffs imposed on them (in this case China), or stop providing the offering completely.

What To Do

Again, my focus in this article isn’t whether the tariffs are good or bad. Individuals with a greater breadth of knowledge and experience can opine on that. What I will comment on is what can be done in each of these areas. These are recommendations based on my limited (eight years) of experience.

Cost of Goods: The first thing I’d ask is, “What does it say in the agreement?” Taking steel as an example, your organization most likely locked in a price for that product which contains steel. There is also, most likely, a clause allowing a certain percentage of price increase annually, or throughout the year. I am not saying you should necessarily buckle down on that price. Your supplier is working to be tenable just like your organization. But use it as a starting point for the discussion on how the tariffs effect the price. Just because the cost of steel has gone up 18% doesn’t mean the cost of what you’re buying goes up 18%. But maybe 5% or 8% makes sense for your organization to pay while the supplier is still profitable.

Logistics: You should look at what countries you are shipping from, and what are the lead times once what your organization purchased enters the U.S. If lead times are extended, your planning for projects or product releases should also be adjusted. Are you able to source from the same company with a presence in a different country? Or is there a distributor in a different country that can provide your organization with the same product, tariff free? Can you work with your supplier in China to ship through another country, such as Vietnam? You should also work to leverage relationships with freight companies or rail road companies you work with to see how you can work together to mitigate the costs of tariffs.

Supplier Choices: Despite personal opinions on the merits or detractions of tariffs and trade wars, organizations across the U.S. have to accept the way things are (until if/when they change). Perhaps it’s time for your organization to begin to look into other suppliers within the U.S., or from countries that don’t have China-level tariffs imposed upon them. You and your organization may have to pay higher prices due to the tariffs, but it’s better to pay just higher prices instead of higher prices plus costs for tariffs. That said, you may be in a bind if what you source only comes from a company in China.

Make-or-Buy: Finally, you and your organization may have to have a serious discussion about make-or-buy (or stop providing the offering altogether). If sourcing from China and a U.S. company doesn’t make sense for your organization, perhaps it’s time to look into producing it in-house. These decisions aren’t made lightly; producing products in-house could cost millions, or tens of millions, in construction, start-up costs, and increased overhead and labor costs. But if it makes sense in the long run it can save your company money lost in higher prices, delayed shipments, and loss of market share.

Risk

A final thought: remember risk. Throughout all of the discussions you have with your organization about how to deal with the current state of affairs with tariffs, always ensure you are managing the risk to your supply chain in all of your decisions. For example, shipping through another country to get around tariffs on China may seem like a good idea at first, but what if the infrastructure and rule of law in that country are poor? Your product may disappear, or bribes to crooked officials may raise the price of your products to the point that you may have well have paid for the product with tariffs.

Think about how your organization can mitigate risks, and what to do in the worst case scenario. (Hopefully you and your organization are already doing this on a daily basis.) Can your organization help build up infrastructure in this country? Or should sourcing be shifted to a U.S. company with less risk in on-time delivery, but maybe higher risk in quality of goods that can be more easily addressed since they are just a quick drive or plane flight away?

Conclusion

Despite what you might think of them, the current tariffs aren’t going anywhere soon. But, with careful planning and risk management, you and your organization can navigate these turbulent waters and maintain your supply chain.

Should You Should-Cost? (The Answer is Yes)

Christopher Meyer 1 Comment

Your supplier says they’re giving you the best deal. They promise they are saving you tons of money compared to their competitors.

But something in the back of your head tells you otherwise.

The supplier didn’t budge in negotiations during your last RFP. Nothing was gained, and the supplier said they actually had to raise prices, regardless of your business with them. They were the lower bid compared to the other bidders, but you still think that you’re not getting the best pricing.

Enter the Should-Cost Analysis

A should-cost analysis is a detailed breakdown of what a material or service should cost compared to what a supplier wants to charge for it.

Once complete, companies can compare their analysis against the bids of potential suppliers, or the pricing of a current supplier.

While there are some programs out there that enable companies to do this, a spreadsheet can generally fill this need.

Dig Into the Details

Should-costing is an in-depth process, and can take quite some time.

We will use a hammer as an example.

In order to should-cost the hammer, you will need to find out what kind of metal is used to make the hammer head. By weighing it, you can determine how much of that metal is used. Is there a rubber handle? Strip the rubber off and weigh it to determine how much rubber there is.

With these weights you can now search online for the current price of the steel and rubber, and determine the cost of the amount of material used.

Was the hammer made in the U.S.? Or China? Include the base salaries of workers in the country the product is made.

How long does it take to make one hammer? How many people are on the assembly line for the hammer? Machinery is most likely used in the process, too. Using an internet search, you can find videos on how things are made to give you a general idea of cycle times and personnel on the production line. (This “How It’s Made” video is perfect for helping you should-cost hammers: https://youtu.be/7xHVyT5oEL4)

Along with this information, corporate overhead, shipping, and any warranties will need to be factored into your should-cost analysis. Many times you can ask the supplier – in supplier workshops or in the RFP itself – the percentage of overhead they include. Or, for publicly traded companies, they include this in their annual report.

 

Putting It All Together

Once all of your information is gathered, organize it and add it up in a logical format.

How does your should-cost analysis match the supplier’s pricing? Is the supplier’s margin close, and they actually are giving you the best pricing? Or is there a large delta that you need to discuss with your supplier?

This information is excellent leverage during negotiations. Calling out suppliers on too-high pricing gives your organization a major advantage.

Note: Do not show the suppliers your should-cost analysis! Giving them an idea of the difference in terms of a percentage is enough. If they ask for it – tough! They came up with their pricing, they need to explain it to you.

To give you an idea what this looks like, here is a rough example of a should-cost analysis for a mini-excavator that I did. Again this is very rough, and doesn’t include shipping and warranty data.

Should-Cost 2

Conclusion

A should-cost analysis can be time consuming, but it is a valuable tool to your organization. With a solid should-cost analysis you and your team can gain a great deal of leverage over the suppliers you negotiation with.

Remember, this can be done with services, too. And, the more detailed the material or service analyzed, the more time it will take. But it will be time well spent!

Managing Change in Procurement

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

These days it seems every organization is going through some sort of change. Companies are cutting levels of management, cutting headcount, adding headcount, reorganizing departments, changing processes, adding paperwork, reducing paperwork, and so on. Such changes can be small or large, but all come with some friction from all affected.

As things change, people within the company will begin to push back. It’s human nature. Change is hard for most human beings. Many times there are personnel, long in the tooth with the company, that have seen such “change initiatives” before, and are just waiting for this latest iteration to blow over before everything goes back to normal.

Change in procurement is no exception. As a company’s procurement organization and the way it does business changes, those within the procurement organization and people within the rest of the company can become frustrated with shifts in everything from new faces to new ways of doing things. It’s up to that Procurement or Supply Chain manager or director, and their team, to navigate these turbulent waters.

Organization

Many times the first thing to change is the procurement organization (usually interchangeable with the change in processes, talked about below). New faces from different business units or outside the organization show up with new titles and responsibilities. The scope of the work they are responsible for changes, and suddenly people within the company have no idea who to call to handle their material or service needs.

Communication is key when this occurs, and over communication is best. It’s important for the procurement organization to openly publish contact information, job titles and a basic description of their duties.

Procurement personnel should have regular meetings with their stakeholders, two or three times a week if need be at the beginning. Of course, face to face meetings are preferable if possible. Technology has made it possible for quasi-face-to-face meetings when being there physically isn’t possible or economical, though.

The Procurement director or manager must ensure that their procurement organization’s strategy and goals are clearly communicated to the organization, and that senior management is on board with their strategy, goals, and the changes occurring.

Processes

Change in processes goes hand-in-hand with change in organization. No longer can a requester create a request and approve it themselves. Now they are required to go up through their management chain. Instead of a crew leader or project manager overseeing a RFP and handling negotiations, the Procurement Organization will take care of all of that.

Again, communication here is key. The Procurement Organization must clearly lay out who has responsibility for which part of the procurement process, and explain why.

For example: “It’s important for the procurement specialist to handle the request for proposal and be the single point of contact for supplier questions so that all suppliers receive the same information. It’s important for the procurement specialist to be the single point of contact for the bids themselves so that they can be compiled and reviewed fairly and ethically, and we can make sure the company is getting the best total cost for what we’re sourcing. More money saved and value added to the organization ensures we’re competitive and people can keep their jobs.”

Explaining the reasons behind theses process changes is just one step.

The next step is showing the value of these changes. The Procurement Organization must balance quick wins with longer terms wins to show their internal customers the value of these process changes. If there’s one thing I’ve seen that brings a skeptical internal customer on board to a new procurement process, it’s dollars saved that directly impact their budget, both immediately and for years to come.

Suppliers

In every company there is a supplier that everyone loves. The sales rep stops in each month to say hi, asking about family members and the golf game coming up that weekend.

With change in procurement organization and processes comes change in suppliers.

Everyone’s favorite supplier is not the best total cost for the organization. After a multi-million dollar RFP, the business was awarded to some supplier that no one has ever heard of. How could the procurement organization do this? The favorite supplier took such good care of the company! This can be especially hard if changing suppliers means changing out a fleet of vehicles, or changing even more processes.

Did the favored supplier actually take care of the company, though?

Once more, communication is the key piece in changing suppliers. The procurement organization must mine historical data and forecasted spend from the company’s systems to clearly communicate and demonstrate the savings and value adds they are receiving by using the new supplier. Showing the savings now, and how much the organization will save in the future quiets many critics.

For those critics that remain, it will be communication of the new supplier’s processes, as well as communication with the supplier of the customer’s requirements. Again, this may be cause for frequent meetings between the procurement organization, the new supplier, and the internal customer to ensure implementation is going smoothly and any issues are hashed out immediately. If the procurement organization can accomplish this, they will most likely win over the last hold outs.

Conclusion

Communication is the corner stone of any change initiative, and changes in a company’s procurement organization, processes, and the suppliers are no exception. Senior management buy-in, and short- and long-term wins are also key, and the procurement director/manager must strive to achieve them all.

Not everyone in the organization will be won over. There are always hold outs. But if the procurement organization does their job and communicates with senior management and other departments in their company, they can work through these issues.

In closing, the final piece of achieving lasting change is to have a plan to continually reinforce that change. Having a five and ten year plan to reinforce and continually improve the changes in procurement ensure those changes remain, and that any gains made aren’t lost two or three years after the changes have been implemented.

Negotiations Don’t Stop at Contract Award

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

Finally! Both you and your supplier have signed a strategic agreement for the next five years. KPI’s and milestones are enshrined in the contract, and it’s a win-win for both of you. You have begun managing the contract and working with the supplier in their roll-out of materials and services to your organization.

You’re done, right?

Wrong.

With any strategic procurement agreement there is always room for improvement. While, overall, your strategic supplier may be saving you money overall, there may be parts and/or services that the supplier is still pricing high. It’s these handful of materials or services in strategic agreements that are ripe for negotiation.

For example, say you have a strategic agreement with a supplier for maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) materials. You have over 10,000 line items in this master procurement agreement, and the supplier was the lowest total cost for 80%-85% of those materials – that’s why you awarded them the agreement. It’s that 20%-15% that can, and should, be negotiated down.

It’s up to you as the sourcing professional responsible for the agreement to regularly review chunks of the MRO materials list for pricing. Other suppliers may have offered some lower pricing on some of the materials in the bidding process, and the sourcing professional can use this information to negotiate with the awarded supplier.

The organization’s buyers are integral to this process, too, as they buy the materials everyday at the tactical level and may be able to spot materials in ones and twos that seem priced high. You can also send out RFQ’s for handfuls of materials at different intervals to see if there is better pricing. This RFQ process may be driven by a purchased dollar threshold set by the organization.

Key performance indicators are another way you can ensure the supplier is offering you the best pricing on these MRO materials. Having a KPI, or several KPIs, that focus on the supplier ensuring they are providing cost savings can help reduce pricing on materials in an already awarded agreement. Maybe a manufacturer has slashed pricing due to increased production, or there is a substitute part that is the same quality but another company produces it at a lower cost.

Once the MRO materials that are higher priced are identified, it’s up to you as the sourcing professional to bring in the supplier’s representatives and negotiate this. Generally speaking, the supplier will be open to reducing the pricing in order to retain your business and have hopes of winning the award again five years down the road.

Using these principles in other agreements, whether materials or services, will ensure you are getting the best pricing for your organization.

Standardization In Processes to Reduce Costs

Christopher Meyer Leave a comment

Go to any department in your organization. How consistent are the ways people are doing things? How consistent are the results in that department? Is everyone on the same page, each person executing their job by a set of processes? Or is everyone doing their job their own way?

If your company is like the company I work for, standardized processes are a near-term goal – or in some cases a far off dream. Each person in a department has their own way to do work, and feels their way is best. Their way has worked thus far, why change it?

Standardizing processes is key to streamlining a department, and in procurement it can mean money saved that directly affects the bottom line.

Purchase Orders

Purchase orders are a primary issue when working to standardize. Some procurement agents process purchase orders one way, some another way. Some buyers have a checklist they follow each time, while other buyers just run the PO through the ERP system and send it to the supplier without another thought.

Standardizing purchase order processing should include, at minimum, the following:

  • Check pricing against negotiated numbers.
  • Consolidate duplicate line items.
  • Confirm material need dates.
  • Confirm shipping method and carrier.
  • Receive order acknowledgement from the supplier.
  • Update expected/promised delivery date from supplier in the ERP, and notify the stakeholder.

Just these simple standardized steps can ensure consistent outcomes each time. Consistent outcomes mean dollars saved internally in time worked on purchase orders and externally in keeping supplier pricing of materials and freight consistent with pre-negotiated prices.

Contracts

Contracts may be more complex than purchase orders, but standardization can be achieved in the process. The procurement specialists that are responsible for RFPs and contracts should have a checklist of everything they need to do, from the moment they receive the RFP/contract from their stakeholder, up to award. This checklist may even include contract management.

Templates are another way to standardize RFPs and contracts. While stakeholder specifications and requirements may differ, the organization should have a single template for procurement specialists to follow with standard information that each RFP and contract must include, such as RFP timeline, milestones, and evaluation criteria. The organization may have two or three checklists and templates for different RFP/contract situations, but each should follow a standardized, enforced process.

Conclusion

Standardization has many benefits, and in an organization’s procurement processes it translates into savings that directly affect the bottom line.

In fact, the German Institute for Standardization, DIN, recently published a report on how standardization positively effects companies. In the report, they found that not only did standardization give companies competitive advantages, but also lowered transaction costs and had positive effects on the buying power of the companies surveyed.

Now is the time to begin process standardization in your procurement organization.