How to Get Away with Almost Anything, and While People are Looking Too - the Power of Brand Capital

This is a momentous occasion - my first blog post from the air. Taking advantage of VirginAmerica's inflight wi-fi I am penning this missive from seat 23C on Flight 411 from JFK to LAX. Why you might ask? Well for a start to take my mind off the non-stop turbulence we've been suffering since we left New York. (Ooops - upchuck). Secondly because this flight and this airline bring to mind a seldom discussed aspect of procurement, that of brand capital.

When I walk off this plane tonight at LAX (oh speed ye to me thy blessed moment! Ooops - upchuck) I will be one green and weary traveller but my love of flying VirginAmerica will be undiminished. Why? Because for me VirginAmerica possesses significant brand capital. Brand capital, that "feel good" factor for a company's products that allows buyers to forgive the occasional bad experience, causes me to ignore this isolated nightmare because of all of the other delightful experiences I've had flying this airline.

Brand capital is a powerful value lever both to suppliers and to the Procurement organizations that select them. If you are a supplier that consistently exceeds all your service level metrics then your resulting brand capital will prove invaluable when life's occasional slippery spot causes you, your coke and your large popcorn to careen headfirst into your customer's lap. They'll laugh, pick you up and dust you off because they know it's a very rare incident in a Titanic-length success story.

Similarly if you are a Procurement Department that proactively sets out to select and develop suppliers that consistently exceed internal customer expectations then you will develop brand capital with these same internal customers yourself. An example of this is a client of mine that places over 80% of its commercial print spend with one supplier. This supplier has consistently exceeded all minimum required performance metrics for quality, delivery and service since it was selected through strategic sourcing by my client's Procurement Department four years ago.

The one potential blight on this supplier's copybook during this run of excellence occurred during 2008 when prices of some paper grades rose by more than 30%. As you can imagine this printer had to pass on some fairly significant cost increases to my client during this period, even though my client's Procurement Department had negotiated best practice caps and collars on allowable percentage price increases. Despite the stinging blow to my client's print budget the print supplier was not tarred, feathered and duct taped to the front railings. No, the supplier enjoyed brand capital and thus was held blameless for market prices increases over which it had no control (and there lies another lesson - without brand capital you often will be blamed for events outside of your control).

Further, in addition to the print supplier enjoying brand capital directly from its performance my client's Procurement Department built its own brand capital (in this case with the Marketing Department, the main consumer of commercial print) by selecting the supplier in the first place and doing it in a way that clearly placed appropriately high weight on non-cost factors. This would make it considerably easier for Procurement to broach the subject of cost reductions with Marketing in the future because Marketing would know from experience that its quality and service needs would not be ignored in the quest for improved bottom line performance.

So whether you are a supplier or a buyer, I recommend that you proactively work on building the highest possible levels of brand capital with your respective customers. Come on - at least put as much effort into it as you do to maximize your frequent flyer miles or your Starwood points! Be warned - when your brand capital balance gets low and the sky falls you risk the buck not only stopping with you but it being super-glued to your desk.

And VirginAmerica Flight 411? No turbulence for an hour...but here come the Rockies. (Ooops - upchuck). No worries, Mr. Branson - you got brand!

A Penny Avoided Is A Penny.....Nah

There's been some good discussion over in the LinkedIn groups recently about the definitions of "Cost Savings" and "Cost Avoidance". Never one to shy from controversy I thought I'd throw my own ten pence in on this since this is an area where it seems very few parties see things exactly the same way.

In my wanderings through the procurement landscape over the years I've seen many tens of different definitions of cost savings and cost avoidance but if I had to choose the most USEFUL definitions (note, not necessarily the most popular) in my opinion they would be:

COST SAVINGS are achieved when the cost of purchasing the same quantity of a good or service falls, e.g. achieving a reduction in the dollar cost of procuring the same market basket of commercial print by leveraging spend with fewer suppliers (note: some definitions would allow specification optimization in addition to simple price reduction such as substituting a different substrate for a printed sign; the total quantity of items purchased however would however remain the same).

COST AVOIDANCE is achieved when an unavoidable increase in the cost of purchasing the same quantity of a good or service is not completely eliminated but is partially offset, e.g. in the period 2007-2008 when paper prices rose by more than 20-30% or more depending on the grade it was impossible to avoid an increase in the cost of most commercial print items but by employing the same procurement best practices as above the cost increase percentage could at least be kept in the low single digits.

My opinion is that these definitions are most useful because they allow the positive outcomes of best practice procurement strategies to be unambiguously and fairly evaluated in both deflationary and inflationary environments. They also allow the CFO and his team to quantify the budget impact in both cases.

But what about goods and services with no previous purchasing history (i.e. no baseline) that are often thrown automatically into the cost avoidance category? I would argue that for these situations it is COST SAVINGS that is most appropriate. Why? Well, in fact you actually CAN establish a baseline for a new purchase by issuing an RFI/test bid to a group of suppliers (making it clear to the suppliers that you are conducting an exploratory evaluation for the purchase in question). The preliminary pricing thus obtained from the RFI effectively forms a baseline (think of it as a "RFI Baseline" for products without a purchasing history) against which to measure the cost savings from the ensuing RFP process. Using the "RFI Baseline" approach for new products allows measurement of RFP-created savings and also (from the CFO point of view) allows aggressive budget targets to be set for products that would previously have been given more "fat" due to their lack of purchasing history.

Oh, and one more thing...by using the RFI Baseline approach for new purchases some end user departments that have historically been responsible for high volumes of "non-baselineable" spend (e.g. travel and meetings, some marketing areas) would be held to tighter criteria of effective buying. By having to conduct RFIs and/or test bids they would alert their vendor base to a forthcoming competitive process and the expectation that likely double digit cost reductions would be expected when the actual RFP hits the streets.

There, that feels better...nothing like starting off the New Year by upsetting multiple constituencies of purchasing terminology idealists, sacred cow internal departments and hitherto unchallenged suppliers of previously unsourced spend!

To Source Or Not To Source...That Really Is The Question

I met up recently with my ex-boss from my days as a sourcing practitioner at GE. During our reminiscing of times gone by we chatted about the current state of procurement and how things had changed since our time under "Neutron Jack". One thing we both agreed was that when you strip away all the e-glitz & e-glamour, nothing has changed when it comes to fundamental procurement decision-making. All Purchasing 101 rules apply just as much in 2009 as they did in 1989 when you are making key decisons such whether to do an RFQ, an RFP, a multi-round negotiation, or even whether to do a competitive sourcing event at all.

Take that last one, about whether to even conduct a sourcing event. Back in the early nineties our GE division spent about eight million dollars annually on various facilities maintenance services such as general R&M, cleaning, lawn & grounds and security. Despite this level of spend number we never ran an RFP for our facilities maintenance services. Instead we participated in a regional purchasing cooperative that included, amongst others, Proctor & Gamble. This co-op secured us about 12% savings on our facilities spend, or $960K annually. Could we have secured another 5% or more savings by going to RFP? Probably. What we did instead was direct the commodity manager who would have run the facilities RFP to a direct materials category, specifically fuel manifolds & piping. How much do you think our division spent on manifolds & piping every year? You guessed it, about eight million dollars, the same as our facilities maintenance spend. The difference was that purchase price represented less than 20%of the total cost of ownership of manifolds & piping, a cost that included impacts on fuel efficiency, maintenance & inspection cost, repair cost, assembly cost and overall engine system performance. The point is that for us the forgone savings on $8M of facilities spend by not going to RFP was far exceeded by the total cost savings on the direct materials spend category.

Flash forward to today and it still surprises me when I encounter companies that focus some of their their best sourcing professionals on time-consuming RFPs for office supplies, MRO and other simple cross-industry indirect spend categories. Ironically these same companies are often failing to direct adequate (or any) resources towards the implementation of a competitive procurement process for categories such as commercial print, advertising or transportation. The end result is often impressive savings numbers for categories like office supplies and MRO at the expense of significant missed savings opportunities for the higher impact spend areas. To make matters worse, e-sourcing software providers are (quite rationally) selling their reverse auction solutions into procurement departments with a primary focus on the simpler spend areas, marketing their case studies of 30% savings from auctions on pens, pencils, nuts, and bolts.

To be fair to procurement organizations it is often the path of least resistance to focus on the simpler indirect spend categories. High levels of stakeholder pushback are often encountered for the more strategic and higher impact categories. Having said this, it is the responsibility of C-level management to demand that procurement be invited into all stakeholder departments. With high levels of executive sponsorship, procurement leaders would be free to focus their best sourcing resources on the categories of highest return and, effectively, not source those categories where the dollar savings does not justify the investment of dollar talent.

In my ideal sourcing world far far away, companies would never run RFPs or reverse auctions for simple indirects like office supplies and MRO. Sourcing events for these types of categories would only ever be conducted by Group Purchasing Organizations who would use them to drive down prices for all buyers. In this same world, procurement's best and brightest would always be invited into stakeholder departments under the umbrella of senior executive sponsorship. These individuals would drive competitive procurement processes in the company's highest impact spend categories through utilization of best practice sourcing processes and technologies (reverse auctions, online RFPs and optimization tools are being used regularly by today's leading players for categories like advertising spend and transportation). In this world scarce procurement resources - both people and technology - would truly be focused in the areas of highest return. After all, a sourcing mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Procurement Service Providers - Better Go Get Your Armor

The market for procurement service providers (PSPs), a sector that includes everything from strategic sourcing consulting to GPO contracts to full blown procurement outsourcing, is shaping up to be quite a battlefield over the next 12-18 months. From personal observations of recent trends I predict there will be spectacular confrontations between the industry's major players as they seek to capture and protect market share, particularly in the eagerly desired upper mid-market segment of companies between $500M and $5B annual sales. And it won’t just be the E-Sourcing Suite Giants and Consulting Firm Goliaths fighting for the business of a customer base considerably more PSP-educated than in the heady pre-B2B bubble days. There will be a myriad of PSP boutiques and GPOs joined in the battle, many of these smaller and more nimble players able to offer flexible and customized solutions at significantly lower cost. To make matters particularly feisty, many of these PSP boutiques will be led onto the field of play by the very same consultants who helped to shape and form the procurement consulting practices of their larger opponents in the late nineties and early 2000’s.

If you are the CFO or CPO of a mid-market company today, you stand to benefit handsomely from the upcoming smackdown in the PSP market. You will be able to categorically demand the highest levels of tangible and lasting value from the various players, large and small, who will parade their wares in front of you over the coming year. You will be able to insist that this value be delivered at the lowest possible cost and with the lowest possible operational risk. Specifically, you will be able to stridently and confidently voice the following demands to the massed ranks of Davids and Goliaths standing in front of you ready to fight for your PSP budget dollars-

DEMAND ONE – I want big cost savings that I can measure

You should demand at least 5-12% savings on direct materials and 15-25% or more on indirect. You should demand that these savings be measurable and budget-impacting based on either lower prices or reduced usage through demand management. Look for PSPs who will guarantee cost savings or offer benefits-funded fee arrangements. Avoid PSPs who mention "process" or "efficiency" savings or who ask to be paid like it’s 1999.

DEMAND TWO – I want a fast ramp-up of the cost savings during the first year

You should demand that at least 80% of annualized cost savings be realizable in the first year. You should ask for specifics about how they will bring forward cost savings and avoid multi-month sourcing projects that take a year or more to throw dollars to the bottom line. Avoid PSPs whose proposals feature pages of “sourcing wave strategies” and “commodity work teams”. Look for PSPs who offer flexible rapid sourcing approaches, incumbent renegotiations and pre-negotiated contracts.

DEMAND THREE – I want suppliers that meet or exceed the service levels of incumbents so that I face minimum resistance from internal department stakeholders

You should demand that whatever techniques are used to create savings, internal departments receive equal or better levels of quality and service. You should demand that any new suppliers selected will sign up for service level guarantees in the areas of quality, delivery lead times, customer service and other key category-specific metrics. Avoid PSPs who talk only about “mandating compliance”. Look for PSPs who talk about how they will work in an integrated fashion with internal stakeholders during the sourcing process.

DEMAND FOUR – In exchange for me providing you with a multi-year spend commitment, I would like some of my savings paid up front in the form of a prebate or signing bonus

Depending upon the categories in scope, you should demand that providers work with suppliers to provide upfront savings in the form of cash prebates on contract signing. This technique, used mainly with pre-negotiated contracts, serves as a compliance enabling tool since such arrangements require the customer to pay back some or all of the prebate if a pre-set spend dollar commitment is not met. Avoid PSPs who won’t consider this. Look for PSPs who will.

DEMAND FIVE – I’d like to pay the minimum possible fees for your services. In fact, where practical, I would like to pay nothing at all

Particularly for indirect categories, paying little or nothing for a PSP’s services is not at all far-fetched. Whether through benefits funded approaches or pre-negotiated contracts you should press on providers’ willingness to dig deep and dramatically reduce your investment requirements. Avoid PSPs who persist with ridiculous seven-figure spend management outsourcing pitches. Look for PSPs who offer procurement savings programs where their revenue models are either supplier-funded (e.g. pre-negotiated contracts) or benefits funded (e.g. sourcing fees based upon savings from an RFP).

The above demands are fair, reasonable and – more importantly – will result in your organization being able to maximize the return on its investment in PSP services. Don’t listen to the whines of those who long for a return to the days of multi-million dollar cost structure-feeding “house accounts”. Listen to your business. Listen to your internal stakeholders. Then seek out those PSPs who fight to win the battles in their market place but who do so with a clear focus on what it will take to be successful – putting their customers’ demands above their own.

Let Me Be Direct

Procurement service providers can create game-changing value for their customers in the current economic climate through high impact sourcing initiatives in both DIRECT and INDIRECT spend areas. Since indirect procurement has been well covered in the blogosphere recently (and one can only keep readers interested for so long about how to design the perfect office supplies core list) I'm going to to focus here on how procurement can not only protect profit margins but create sustainable competitive advantage through world class direct materials sourcing. Whether your customers are in manufacturing, retail, food, or consumer packaged goods these procurement strategies will keep your clients afloat through the perfect economic storm and excellently equipped to maintain a healthy lead over their competition when balmy financial weather returns.

THE DIRECT MATERIALS GAME CHANGING PROCUREMENT INITIATIVE

Increase Gross Margins by developing a supply base that enables an organization to minimize cost and maximize customer service for its most highly demanded products.

Thousands of companies go out of business in recessionary economic environments because their supply chains are unable to deliver the very products that their customers are ready and willing to buy. It turns out that many of these same products are also their most profitable. In good economic times, a poorly performing supply chain like this doesn't present too many obvious problems. If you're selling a billion dollars of product at 20% gross margin you can swan along quite happily feeding an operating expense base of nearly $200 million, leaving millions of customers wanting stuff you've run out of and millions of dollars of stuff they don't want sitting on store shelves or in the warehouse. However, when the downturn hits and your sales nosedive, your 20% gross margin is now trying to satisfy the same operating expense base. Hello negative operating income!

Procurement service providers can help companies maintain positive operating margins in recessionary or slow growth environments by helping them select suppliers that can deliver the lowest total cost inputs to production (or resale merchandise for retailers and distributors) while also supporting the highest levels of customer service for the end products that are in highest demand from customers. Low cost inputs result in a profitable product while high customer service results in an available product. Making a profitable and highly demanded product available is the greatest lever a company has to increase gross margin.

What role can Procurement play in this? First, analyze historical order history by product (making sure to include backorders) and identify the 20% of products comprising the top 80% of customer demand. Then calculate profit contribution for each of these high demand products, where profit contribution is the difference between a product's selling price and its total cost including procurement cost, transportation cost, and any internal manufacturing costs. Now identify the 20% of the high demand products that comprise 80% of total profit contribution. These are your company's most profitable and highly demanded products! If an organization can ensure that these products are always available for their customers to buy, it will be fully realizing maximum potential gross margin for its industry sector.

Procurement's role in helping an organization maximize gross margin should be to facilitate a cross-functional strategic sourcing process that identifies, evaluates and selects suppliers based on their ability to meet exacting criteria for total cost management and customer service. Specifically, Procurement should work with stakeholders in marketing, manufacturing, distribution and other departments to develop weighted, metric-based criteria in areas such as a supplier's capability to strategically source their own raw materials, implement lean manufacturing processes, deploy logistics strategies capable of consistently achieving 99% line item fill rates at their customers' point of sale, and manage indirect operating expenses to maintain financial health while delivering low prices to their customers. The outcome of the strategic sourcing process should be a set of closely integrated supply relationships with a small number of supply partners that between them satisfy the ultimate goal of lowest total cost of ownership and highest customer service for the company's highest demand products.

If you are a service provider with a competency for developing low cost/high service level supply bases, you can ensure that your customers will always enjoy gross margins in the top quartile for their industry. Particularly in recessionary or slow growth periods, a laser-like focus on service levels and availability for high profit/high demand products will guarantee financial health until the recovery is in full swing. And by helping your customers optimize their supply chains today, you will help them remain strides ahead of their competitors long after the recessionary period has ended. By maintaining above average profitability for their industry they will be able to make heavier investments than competitors in all aspects of their business, allowing them to maintain a perpetual competitive advantage.

Who said procurement was all about buying pens and pencils?

Vivian and the Barbarians

"Mr. Lewis and I are going to build ships together, great big ships"
- Pretty Woman, 1990

Flying home recently I was talking with the guy next to me and the subject got around to my company. When I happened to mention that a major market focus for us was private equity his immediate comment was "ah, financial wheeling and dealing, huh?" His reaction was natural since many people today still associate private equity with KKR, LBOs and - yes - Richard Gere's ruthless "buy 'em and scrap 'em" millionaire businessman character Edward Lewis from the movie "Pretty Woman".

The fact is the vast majority of private equity firms in the last 2-3 years have introduced a far more operational aspect to the acquisition, management and eventual sale of the companies in their investment portfolios. Major players like TPG, Blackstone and Carlyle all have all built in-house operations groups with a focus on driving bottom line cost savings in portfolio companies through initiatives such as cross-portfolio leveraged procurement. The realization is that these operationally focused programs will ultimately drive more tangible and sustainable EBITDA increases (you knew I'd pull that term out, didn't you?) than any financial wizardry and sleight of hand manipulation of debt to equity ratios and derivative utilization. Smaller, mid-market PE firms are also making strides by appointing "operations czars" to coordinate cross-portfolio cost savings programs and in many cases hiring PE-focused consulting firms to help plan and manage these programs.

Over the next few weeks I will be featuring guest commentaries from several PE firm operations executives who have been given the responsibility of spearheading various types of cross-portfolio cost reduction initiatives in their organizations. They'll give a fresh take on how more and more PE firms today are driving genuine value creation and leaving firms in a measurably better state post-divestiture than before they acquired them.

I guess it wasn't just Edward that Vivian saved.

Hires That Make You Go Hmmmm....

Lot of banter on the blogs recently about the pros and cons of hiring staff from internal departments to fill positions on indirect procurement teams. Over on Supply Excellence, Justin Fogarty in his piece Category vs Procurement Experience: Which matters more? talks about several presentations he has seen from senior procurement executives who in each case saw "great results by actively recruiting for new procurement headcount from other functional areas of the company". Justin specifically mentions AXA CPO Dr. Heinz Schaeffer and Heinz VP Procurement Chris Stockwell, both of whom achieved significant headcount increases in their organizations by transferring in people from Marketing, IT and other departments.

The most common argument in support of hiring internal stakeholders into procurement is that the new recruits bring deep category expertise and ready-made stakeholder relationships that could only be acquired by hiring directly from the area in question. By providing crash courses in purchasing and contracting practices these individuals will immediately become "uber-buyers" capable of creating value even in "sacred cow" categories. They will mesh their newly acquired sourcing capabilities with pre-existing domain knowledge and work seamlessly with their ex-colleague stakeholders to implement bleeding edge sourcing strategies that simultaneously drive innovation, quality, service and lowest total cost of ownership.

And all this time I thought that building a world class procurement organization and was such hard work! All that search for procurement talent, all that investment in strategic sourcing best practices , and all that relationship building with internal stakeholders. And all I had to do was......HIRE FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS???? Oh dear, something don't smell right and it ain't the burgers. First of all, are there cases where internal transfers into Procurement have worked out excellently? Of course! Very many. But does that mean it should be utilized as a formal strategy for building a procurement team? Nah, and here's why.... My Top Ten Reasons For NOT Utilizing Internal Transfers as a Formal Strategy for Building World Class Procurement Organizations:

Reason 10. As a formal organization building strategy it won't always be available anyway - hiring from within is almost always driven by budget pressure and the need to shuffle people internally rather than hire from the outside. When times are good again the source of internal hires will dry up.

Reason 9. Internal customers usually leave their departments for a reason. Either because they had no option (as in #10 above) or because they are bored or disenchanted with their current work. They are very unlikely to be people who have "always wanted to be in procurement". Consequently they will not necessarily be enthusiastic about their new role which is something a Chief Procurement Officer would presumably want to be the case.

Reason 8. Closely linked to #10 above, a Chief Procurement Officer needs to be very careful that he/she doesn't set a trend of being prepared to forego hiring from the outside. Regardless of whether it makes sense on some occasions to hire from internal departments, there will come times when the correct decision is most certainly to hire from the outside. If you've convinced yourself and your CEO/CFO that hiring from within can always be the right decision then your chances of bringing on board that stellar external candidate when they become available is very slim.

Reason 7. The influence that internal hires into procurement will have in helping garner stakeholder support from their ex-colleagues is usually overstated. Again, people who leave departments to join procurement will not usually be the movers and shakers and will usually have cast small shadows among their peer groups.

Reason 6. Paradigms and mindsets can be hard to break. In my aerospace industry days we hired an extremely capable design engineer into our sub-assembly procurement group and one of the main reasons he struggled was his tunnel vision about specs and unwillingness to consider new supply sources for critical components. Just one example I know but nevertheless one to bear in mind when beaming someone in to fill a supply management slot.

Reason 5. Crash Training Don't Work. Never Has. Never Will. The thought that you can take an internal customer and over the course of a few weeks "brain helmet" into this person all of the thought capital that has been developed in the field of strategic sourcing and procurement these last 10-15 years is quite frankly insulting to, well, all of those who developed this thought capital.

Reason 4. Bringing someone into procurement to leverage their expertise in one category seems a bit inefficient doesn't it? Top notch sourcing professionals in most best practice procurement organizations are perfectly able to leverage their expertise across several category areas. Even if a company has a very high spend in say, advertising, parachuting someone in from marketing to talek advantage of their media buying expertise will mean that individual will either have to take on other categories as well (negating the stakeholder expertise argument) or you've just tied up a whole FTE on one category.

Reason 3. The hire from within strategy makes the basic assumption that differing viewpoints, disagreements and even a measure of conflict are bad things. I question that assumption. Conflict can be good. It airs opposing points of view. It throws out alternative solutions that can be kicked around and evaluated a bit. One of the highest value adds that procurement brings to the table is to challenge stakeholder specifications and requirements. Not to call them wrong, just to push back a bit, engage in some give and take. By simply rebranding stakeholders as procurement folks we're saying that this particular role holds no value. That's plain wrong.

Reason 2. World class procurement organizations from HP to P&G to Disney have achieved high performing supply management processes by leveraging in an integrated end-to-end fashion the unique capabilities of all stakeholders, including procurement. One of procurement's key roles is orchestrating the interaction of suppliers and various internal customers to maximize service and quality at lowest total cost. If an internal hire truly sees this a role they wish to aspire to through rigorous professional development and job experience in the procurement field then that's wonderful. But again, if it's a Hobson's Choice, then procurement, the individual in question and the whole organization have created negative value.

And now....The Top Reason For NOT Utilizing Internal Transfers as a Formal Strategy for Building World Class Procurement Organizations.....

Reason 1. Building a World Class Procurement Organization that is respected and held in the highest esteem by internal departments is hard work.........BUT ISN'T ANYTHING WORTH HAVING HARD WORK? Don't compromise. If you're a CPO looking to create game-changing bottom line savings for your company then market the business case for a world-class procurement organization to your CEO and then BUILD IT!