Indirect Procurement - Higher_Visibility_Greater_Expectations

Document Sample
Indirect Procurement - Higher_Visibility_Greater_Expectations Powered By Docstoc
					Higher Visibility,
Greater Expectations
A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2010
    T
“          he procurement of indirect goods and services—do you mean pa-
           per clips, printer paper and temps?” “We just don’t have time. The
           spend isn’t big enough to justify the effort. It’s maybe 20 percent of
    our third party spend.” “We already have indirect goods under control.
    We’ve been sourcing office supplies for years.” Supply chain profession-
    als have heard these types of questions and comments for years when
    discussing the benefits of managing the procurement of indirect goods
    and services more rigorously and systematically. But indirect procure-
    ment is not what it used to be.

    Today far more people recognize the importance             The results present a mixed picture. Procure-
    of indirect procurement as it now includes pur-       ment organizations are becoming more influential
    chasing complex goods and services such as IT,        within their companies, building stronger inter-
    marketing and advertising, facilities management,     nal relationships and boosting performance. An
    professional services, and maintenance, repair and    increasing number of C-level executives under-
    operations (MRO). Indirect procurement typi-          stand how indirect procurement contributes to
    cally accounts for 60 percent of third-party spend    financial results (cost reduction and revenue
    in non-manufacturing companies, more than 90          growth), risk avoidance and value creation. And
    percent in the financial services industry, and       they acknowledge that the contributions can be
    sometimes 50 percent of spend in manufacturing        substantial. As one leader said, “In our business
    organizations. But recognition is only the first      unit, the chief procurement officer (CPO) for indi-
    step. While many companies do a good job of           rect goods and services has the same delivery targets
    sourcing paper clips, far fewer manage complex        as the CPO responsible for direct materials.”
    indirect spend categories with the level of atten-         Yet, in looking back at the results from our
    tion necessary to reap the potential benefits.        earlier study — performed in 2007— some opti-
         To identify how leading procurement organi-      mistic or aspirational predictions have not been
    zations are managing the procurement of indirect      fulfilled, or they took place more slowly or with
    goods and services, A.T. Kearney performed the        less impact than expected. For example, the move
    2010 Indirect Procurement Study in which we           toward outsourcing indirect procurement has
    queried procurement executives from 94 multi-         been far slower than anticipated. Participants in
    national companies who manage a combined              the 2007 study expected 40 percent of opera-
    global indirect spend of nearly $134 billion (see     tional indirect procurement to be outsourced by
    sidebar: Study Approach and Definitions on page 2).   2010. The actual figure is 14 percent. Furthermore,


                                                      HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS       |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                           .          1
    the outsourcing service providers of choice, which                         In another surprising finding, indirect pro-
    were predicted to be business process outsourcing                      curement organizations are leaving money on the
    giants such as IBM and Accenture, are actually                         table by neglecting their most sophisticated tools.
    category-specific managed service providers with a                     For example, rather than using advanced data
    narrower mandate.                                                      analytics techniques such as predictive modeling



    Study Approach and Definitions
    Following A.T. Kearney’s initial study             Study participant ratios are as           participation in multifunctional
    in 2007, the 2010 Indirect Procure-           follows (see figure):                          development teams, process devel-
    ment Study focused on how compa-              •	On	average,	2.2	full-time	employ-            opment, simplification and
    nies are becoming more efficient in              ees work on indirect procurement            standardization.
    the sourcing of indirect goods and ser-          activities per $100 million in third-    •	 Tactical	activities.	These typically
    vices. The global study team, com-               party spend.                                include routine supplier communi-
    prising 14 consultants and analysts,          •	On	average,	80	percent	of	third-             cation, interactions with internal
    have worked on hundreds of relevant              party indirect procurement spend            users, monitoring supplier service,
    client engagements. Participants com-            is spread among 14.6 percent of             problem resolution, supply market
    pleted a detailed questionnaire with             the supply base.                            screening, demand analysis, cate-
    more than 1,400 evaluation points             •	On	average,	the	equivalent	of	0.4	           gory strategy development, supplier
    spanning six different savings levers            percent of third-party spend goes           selection, negotiation of contracts,
    for the successful management of                 to non-personnel related infra-             process controlling, spend manage-
    indirect spend: influence, automation,           structure costs to support the indi-        ment, compliance management and
    organization structure, tools and tech-          rect procurement organization               supplier performance management.
    niques, benefits measurement and key               The following are definitions for      •	 Operational	activities. These typi-
    performance indicators. Participants          the strategic, tactical and operational        cally include requisition-to-pay,
    included procurement and supply               activities described in this paper:            order pacing and administration,
    chain executives from 94 companies,           •	 Strategic	activities.	These typically       order retrieving, order inspection,
    representing 21 countries from North             include business strategy develop-          order registration, warehousing,
    and South America, Western and                   ment, supplier relationship man-            change order management and
    Eastern Europe, and Asia Pacific.                agement, stakeholder management,            financial reporting.


    Figure: The study highlighted several key ratios

          Spend per procurement FTE*                  Supplier spend concentration              Non-personnel infrastructure costs
           (for indirect goods and services)        (% of suppliers receiving 80% of spend)
       (US$ million)                    $170.80         14.6%                                                                       3.125%


                            $96.70

           $44.80                                                     3.6%                                          0.877%
                                                                                   1.4%             0.357%

          Average        Average of     Highest       Average      Average of     Highest          Average       Average of         Highest
                         top quartile    ratio                     top quartile    ratio                         top quartile        ratio

    *FTE is full-time employee                                                                 Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2010




2   HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                |      .
                                                               A.T Kearney
to deliver useful future insights, many indirect                        spend, identified savings and addressable catego-
procurement groups are merely analyzing data to                         ries. But less than half include compliance man-
track historical trends.                                                agement metrics such as spend integrity or
     Further, benefits tracking remains a problem                       accuracy, supplier commitments, scorecards or
for procurement organizations as they still do not                      reviews. This data, of course, not only helps with
control where the savings go. Commenting on                             the realization and sustainability of identified ben-
a chief financial officer’s response to the benefits                    efits but also informs future supplier selection and
reports, one study participant explained, “Even in                      negotiations.
our strongly financially focused company, budget-                            In short, although once overlooked, indirect
holders still decide what to do with the funds                          procurement organizations have come a long way
created through sourcing their indirect products                        and are increasingly recognized as having signifi-
and services.” Without strict reporting and gover-                      cantly more value to contribute.
nance structures in place, the savings are often
used in unintended ways.                                                Indirect Procurement: Influence on the Rise
     It continues to be true that what companies                        Where is procurement most influential today, and
track and report illustrates what they value. More                      where does it expect to be involved in the future?
than two-thirds of study participants say their                         IT, telecom and logistics are the categories in
companies measure such financial and internal                           which procurement is most active today (see figure
key performance indicators (KPIs) as addressable                        1). Procurement has the least amount of influence



Figure 1
Procurement’s level of influence by category


Average rating                                                                                             Current           Future
(100% = full involvement in all category related spend)
90%
                                                                                   82%                                       84%
                                                                                                    80%
80%                    76%
                                                   72%          72%
70%           68%                                                                                                    66%
                                                                             62%              62%
60%                                       58%             56%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

 0%
                IT and                Marketing and      Professional        Overhead         Facilities             Logistics
               telecom                 advertising         services         and support
Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2010




                                                                      HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS          |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                                              .          3
    on marketing and advertising, and professional           cent, and the lowest projected level of increase in
    services. Looking ahead, the greatest growth is          the future, as participants expect to increase their
    expected in overhead and support, with facilities        involvement in spend decisions by just eight points
    and logistics following closely behind.                  to 76 percent.
         Procurement’s involvement has increased over            There are many ways a procurement team can
    time, as corporate boards consider business cases        increase its influence in spend decisions — through
    for procurement that are based on past successes.        internal marketing of proven successes, effective
    Growth within categories can reflect a move from         communication, and leadership support.

                                                                      Indirect Takes Unexpected Turn
                                                                       In the 2007 study, the largest number
    Indirect procurement organi-                                       of participants (45 percent) reported a
                                                                       mixed centralized-decentralized indirect
    zations have come a long way                                       procurement organization with respon-
                                                                       sibilities split along function or category
    and are increasingly recog-                                        lines. Furthermore, 44 percent of study
    nized as having significantly                                      participants expected that model to pre-
                                                                       vail in 2010.
    more value to contribute.                                                Now, fast-forward to 2010 and the
                                                                       most successful model is far different.
                                                                       Measured by realized benefits, the lead-
                                                                       ing model is a central-led indirect pro-
    simpler to more complex goods and services. In           curement organization that collaborates across
    professional services, for example, procurement          business units. Users of this model have achieved
    may have begun with temporary labor and                  savings greater than 10 percent over the past two
    expanded to address boardroom-driven expenses            years in 47 percent of categories.
    such as audit, legal and consulting.                          The model comprises a virtual team that
         Viewed regionally, procurement executives in        works for the greater good of the organization. The
    developing regions and emerging markets expect           head office collaborates with business units globally
    to experience the most growth in influence. For          to come up with the optimal company solution
    example, Latin American study participants expect        (see case study: Global Financial Institution).
    to	be	involved	in	84	percent	of	related	spend	deci-      Success requires procurement professionals to
    sions in the future; today they are involved in          develop solid working relationships. Local leader-
    about 62 percent of such decisions. Study partici-       ship, support and expertise are particularly impor-
    pants from Korea, China and Japan; India and             tant when dealing with complex categories such as
    Southeast Asia; and Africa and the Middle East are       IT, marketing and advertising, and professional
    close behind with forecasts of 20-point growth in        services. Voluntary collaboration is also essential
    involvement. Interestingly, pro-curement execu-          if centralized contracts for such categories and
    tives in North America have the highest level of         arms-length mandates from the head office are to
    involvement	in	current	spend	decisions	at	68	per-        deliver on their promises.


4   HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS    |      .
                                                   A.T Kearney
CASE STUDY: Global Financial Insitution

A global financial institution started                     map, with more than 160 action                    6 percent. Dedicated category teams
its journey to build a world-class                         points, the organization reached                  work on a global scale, effectively
procurement organization. Following                        world-class status, as judged by two              collaborating as a business unit with-
one of the world’s largest mergers,                        independent firms. Today, the orga-               out borders, and most operational
the company was hampered by poor                           nization sources (or resources) more              and tactical activities are either fully
performance in almost all areas.                           than $1.6 billion a year, with average            automated or supported by IT.
Charting a three-year strategic road-                      year-on year savings of more than




     The move to outsourcing also took a different                                2007 to 12 percent in 2010: the actual figure today
direction than predicted. Executives participating                                is 5 percent. For tactical activities, 6 percent in
in the 2007 study expected significant growth                                     2001 was expected to reach 23 percent in 2010:
in outsourcing strategic, tactical and operational                                The actual figure is unchanged at 6 percent. Finally,
activities by 2010 (see figure 2). But the numbers                                operational activity outsourcing was forecast to
show slow or no growth. Outsourcing of strategic                                  move from 10 percent in 2007 to 40 percent in
activities was projected to grow from 1 percent in                                2010: The actual number in 2010 is 14 percent.



Figure 2
The move to outsource strategic and operational activities is slower than expected


Outsourcing of activities, actual versus expected
(% of respondents)
                                                                 40
       2007 actual                                                                             2010 actual
       Expected in 2010                                                                        Expected in 2 to 4 years
                                                                                                                                                32



                                         23
                                                                                                                             19

                                                                                                                                       14
               12
                                                          10                                          10
                                                                         4% instead of 30%
                                 6                                                                                    6
                                                                      Unchanged instead of 17% 5
                                                                      U h     di      d f %
       1                                                                  % i s ead of %
                                                                                  d
                                                                         4% instead of 11%

      Strategic
      St t i                    T ti l
                                Tactical               O
                                                       Operational
                                                            ti   l                           St t
                                                                                             Strategic               Tactical        Operational
                                     2007                                                                                 2010
Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2007 and 2010




                                                                              HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                   |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                                                               .          5
         What explains these numbers? The potential                                         with their existing organizational structure.
    failure of external service providers, as illustrated                                        In addition, indirect procurement decision-
    by the downfall of Satyam, exposed the risks inher-                                     makers are closely scrutinizing providers’ capabili-
    ent in handing over strategic activities to outsiders.                                  ties and how they align with their organizations’
    Indeed, as figure 3 shows, risk has become the                                          often complex requirements. Advocates of out-
    primary concern in deciding whether or not to                                           sourcing must present a compelling business case,
    outsource. In 2007, 20 percent of companies con-                                        which is becoming more difficult to develop as
    sidering	 outsourcing,	 and	 38	 percent	 of	 compa-                                    influencing factors such as labor arbitrage are
    nies considering the use of a managed service                                           producing increasingly lower returns. Furthermore,
    provider, were concerned about the risk of losing                                       high unemployment levels in developed coun-
    control. In 2010, the concern of losing control for                                     tries are making headcount reductions politically
    both of these models jumped up to 100 percent.                                          unpalatable.
    Furthermore 100 percent of 2010 participants say                                             When queried about the selection criteria
    they will not select a managed service provider or                                      for choosing outsourcing partners, 2010 partici-
    captive offshoring model due to misalignment                                            pants report that a strong relationship and trust



    Figure 3
    Risk is primary concern in outsourcing decision


    % of companies selecting “yes”                                             Procurement outsourcing    Managed service provider         Captive offshoring

                                                                 2007                                                      2010

       Risk a loss                              20%                                                                                                  100%
                                                                                                                                                     10
       of control
                                                          38%                                                                                        10
                                                                                                                                                     100%

                                                          38%                                                                        63%
                                                                                                                                      3%
                                                                                                                                     63


       Does not fit                                       37%                                                                              82%
                                                                                                                                           82
       in organiza-
                                                          38%                                                                                        100%
                                                                                                                                                     10
       tional model
                                                          38%                                                                                        100%
                                                                                                                                                     10


       Does not fit                                                  50%                                                                   82%
                                                                                                                                           82
       in company
                                                                     52%                                                                       90%
                                                                                                                                               90
       culture
                                                                48%                                                                              94%
                                                                                                                                                 94


       Business                                          35%                                                                               82%
                                                                                                                                           82
       case for this
                                                          37%                                                                                  90%
                                                                                                                                               90
       scenario is
       inadequate                                         38%                                                                                    94%
                                                                                                                                                 94


    Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2007 and 2010




6   HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                                |      .
                                                                               A.T Kearney
are the most important elements—more impor-                                                 Repeating history, 2010 study participants
tant than process competency. Category manage-                                         predict a decline in centralized internal service
ment expertise ties for second place, and the                                          provision within the next two to four years. The
ability to deliver a total solution ranks third.                                       rationale for centralized internal service provid-
     Although indirect procurement outsourcing                                         ers — improved volume leverage, higher rates of
has not developed as fast as expected, we should                                       compliance and increased transparency — may
not assume that it will not do so eventually. In                                       simply be too compelling to abandon, particularly
the meantime, however, someone has to perform                                          given the risks of the alternatives.
indirect procurement duties. Once more the sur-
vey findings confound expectations. The 2007                                           More Automation on the Wish List
participants relied heavily on centralized internal                                    While purchase-to-pay (P2P) systems have been
service providers for strategic, tactical and opera-                                   around for more than 10 years, they are not
tional activities, but predicted that those levels                                     applied as widely as might be expected (see figure
would drop substantially in the near future. They                                      4). One explanation may be that the tools are still
thought that captive offshoring would increase.                                        evolving; another is the price tag. Even so, study
However, findings in the 2010 study reveal the                                         participants are aiming to use automated tools in
opposite: participants report an increase in cen-                                      line with best practices, as demonstrated by their
tralized service provision across the board and less                                   ambitious tool deployment plans. They expect to
captive offshoring.                                                                    increase the automation of spend management



Figure 4
Purchase to pay systems are still not widely applied


Level of automation by category                                                           Level of spend coverage by category
(average usage rating: 1 = low, 5 = high)                                                 (average % of spend)

     4.1                                                                                    85.6                                                           84.6
                                                           4.0
                                             3.9                          3.9                                                              80.9
                  3.7           3.7                                                                                          79.1
                                                                                                      77.2       76.5

     3.2                                                                                    70.4                                                           69.7
                                                                          3.0
                                                           2.9                                                                             63.8
                                             2.8                                                                             62.6
                                2.6
                  2.5                                                                                 58.4       58.0

                                                                 Next 2 to 4 years                                                              Next 2 to 4 years
                                                                 Today                                                                          Today
          co d



          sin d



          ic l



                                           pp ad




                                                           s



                                                                         s




                                                                                                    co d



                                                                                                    sin d



                                                                                                    ic l



                                                                                                                             pp ad




                                                                                                                                           s



                                                                                                                                                           s
       rv na




                                                                                                 rv na
                                                         ie



                                                                         ic




                                                                                                                                           ie



                                                                                                                                                           ic
       le n



       rti an




                                                                                                 le n



                                                                                                 rti an
    te IT a




                                         su he




                                                                                              te IT a




                                                                                                                           su he
             m



             g



            es




                                                t




                                                                                                       m



                                                                                                       g



                                                                                                      es




                                                                                                                                  t
                                                       lit



                                                                      st




                                                                                                                                       lit



                                                                                                                                                        st
   se ssio




                                                                                             se ssio
                                             or




                                                                                                                               or
   ve g




                                                                                             ve g
                                                                     gi




                                                                                                                                                       gi
                                                      ci




                                                                                                                                      ci
                                        d er




                                                                                                                          d er
ad etin




                                                                                          ad etin
                                                                   Lo




                                                                                                                                                      Lo
                                                    Fa




                                                                                                                                      Fa
                                      an Ov




                                                                                                                        an Ov
        e




                                                                                                  e
     of




                                                                                               of
     k




                                                                                               k
  Pr




                                                                                            Pr
  ar




                                                                                            ar
M




                                                                                          M




Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2007 and 2010




                                                                                     HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                      |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                                                                         .          7
    CASE STUDY: North American Insurance Firm

    To improve visibility and influence      contract management, supplier rela-    the organization, an electronic
    over purchasing decisions, a leading     tionship management and eRfx.          central	repository	containing	80
    North American insurance provider        Today, the company has achieved        percent of its current incumbent
    began a two-year strategic journey       what many other companies strive       third-party contracts, and an eRfx
    to deploy the latest systems available   for — including visibility into 100    tool that is also being used to source
    covering requisition-to-pay (R2P),       percent of its indirect spend across   professional services such as legal.




    by 60 percent, bidding and negotiations by 22                  identifying opportunities in the more complex
    percent,	contract	management	by	58	percent	and	                indirect categories that often require forward
    supplier	performance	management	by	78	percent.	                looking decisions and scenario analyses to identify
    Behind this commitment to invest in automation                 maximum value. The application of advanced ana-
    lies a proven return on investment: the higher the             lytics requires not only a detailed understanding
    automation levels across indirect categories, the              of and access to a robust data set, but also the
    larger the average savings (see figure 5).                     knowledge and information to make calculated
         The case study on the page illustrates the                assumptions. As one of our clients said, “having
    success story of a North American insurance firm,              the right analytic capabilities and tools on the
    which is partly due to automating many of its                  team helped us to quantify the trade-offs in the
    tactical and operational activities.                           category and to make fact-based prioritization
                                                                   and supplier selection decisions.”
    Traditional Sourcing Trumps
    Advanced Analytics
    Despite having an array of
    advanced tools and techniques                     A strong relationship and trust are
    at their disposal, there is a defi-
    nite preference for tools that                    the most important criteria when
    foster supplier competition —
    negotiations, issuing requests
                                                      choosing outsourcing partners.
    for information (RFIs) and
    requests for proposals (RFPs),
    and benchmarking prices. When applying ana-                    Nailing Down the Benefits:
    lytics, the focus is usually on spend tracking and             Tracking What Matters
    management, and less on modeling applications                  Few people would be surprised to learn that
    that have benefited the direct procurement side                92 percent of our study participants track cost
    (see figure 6).                                                reduction benefits linked to sourcing. Seventy-
         Advanced analytic capabilities, such as pre-              seven percent track cost avoidance, defined as
    dictive modeling and optimization, can assist in               reduction in the appreciation of costs previously


8   HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS          |      .
                                                         A.T Kearney
 Figure 5
 The higher the automation levels across indirect categories, the larger the average savings


                                                   Co
                                                   Companies in North America
                                    High




                                                   Companies in Western Europe
                                                   Co

                                                                                                                                       Companies with more
                                                                                                                                       automation in indirect
                                                                                                                                       categories have higher
                                                                                                                                       average savings across
                                                                                                                                       all categories
            (average per company)
Savings level

                                    Low




                                                 Low                                                                                                High

                                                                                        Automation level
 Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2007 and 2010                       (average per company)




 Figure 6
 Analytics is currently focused on spend management but will evolve to more advanced analytics


 Average rating                                                                                                       Current focus     Future focus
 (1 = low level of usage, 5 = high level of usage)
5.0                                                    4.7
4.5                                                                             4.2
4.0                                        3.9
                                                                                                                     3.6
3.5                                                                                               3.4

3.0                                                                  2.9                                                                      2.8
                                                                                                               2.6
2.5                                                                                      2.3
2.0                                                                                                                                   1.7
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
                                     Tracking and                  Spend query        Cost and should-           Spend                Predictive
                                    spend reporting                                    cost modeling          forecasting             modeling
 Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2010




                                                                                               HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS         |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                                                                      .          9
     Figure 7
     Control of savings and lack of procurement involvement are most common reasons
     for not tracking benefits



                          Reason for not tracking                                         % of respondents tracking benefits

        Benefit is re-invested                                                                                                     73%


        Benefit is out of scope of procurement savings                                                                       63%


        Lack of procurement involvement                                                                                58%


        Benefit cannot be tracked                                                                               48%


        Cannot place a value on benefits                                                              34%


        Cannot forecast impact                                                                       32%


        Savings calculation not accepted                                                             32%


        Benefit does not impact cash savings                                                  20%


        Fear of budget reduction                                                        14%

     Source: A.T. Kearney Indirect Procurement Study, 2007 and 2010




     paid or budgeted, and 72 percent track rebates.                                the savings due to a lack of (or limited) involve-
     Far fewer track other more subtle sources of                                   ment.
     benefits and value delivery—the kind that could                                    The latest thoughts in this area correlate the
     allow procurement teams to expand their influ-                                 benefits measured with the investment require-
     ence within the organization, such as income                                   ments needed to deliver desired results. A new
     generation, innovation, tax and value-added-tax                                approach, Return on Supply Management Assets,
     savings, commissions and litigation reduction.                                 or ROSMA©, helps translate the business case
         Although it is possible to track cost reduction                            into a language more recognizable to finance exec-
     savings, corporate leaders are often reluctant to                              utives (see figure 8).
     accept indirect procurement team’s interpretation
     of the results. Figure 7 presents the reasons why.                             Measuring Performance: What Is Key In KPI
     Leading the list is the re-investment of benefits                              Our study findings grouped performance indica-
     achieved. Without rigorous reporting and gover-                                tors into three buckets: financial, internal and
     nance, savings may disappear back into the busi-                               compliance. Participants follow financial KPIs
     ness before they are properly accounted for. In                                more extensively than any other group. Eighty-
     addition, procurement may not be credited with                                 three percent look at total addressable spend; 79


10   HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                          |      .
                                                                          A.T Kearney
percent review addressable categories; and 75 per-                                      reflecting compliance management. While indi-
cent look at annual expense reduction. The least                                        rect procurement leaders consider compliance
popular financial KPI, annual capital cost reduc-                                       metrics regarding top suppliers relevant, other
tion, still attracts 63 percent of participants. The                                    supplier-related metrics lie further down the
top internal KPIs are savings, spend and categories                                     scale. These priorities reflect missed opportuni-
under	management,	cited	by	84	percent,	64	per-                                          ties. Indeed, effective supplier relationship man-
cent and 63 percent of participants respectively.                                       agement depends on data that more than half of
     Fewer companies pay attention to KPIs                                              study participants do not collect.



Figure 8
Return on Supply Management Assets (ROSMA©)




                                                                                        ROSMA©




                                 Financial results delivered                                 ÷                Invested supply management assets




(                                                                                   (
                                                                                               Net
      Spend
     coverage
                     x     Velocity       x    Category
                                                yields
                                                              x   Compliance            +   extended
                                                                                            benefits
                                                                                                                 Period
                                                                                                                 costs
                                                                                                                                            Structural
                                                                                                                                           investment



                             Complex            Negotiation                                    Realized
          Total
                           negotiations            driven               Policy                value from            FTE’s       Infrastructure       Capabilities
         spend                                                                               prior period
                            completed            strategies
                                                                                             negotiations

                          Conventional
        Visibility        negotiations             Complex             Visibility              Change               Roles          Process            Recruiting
                           completed                                                         in inventory


                            Program                                                            Change
        Spend                                                                                  in DPO
                           addressed            Conventional        Enforcement                                  People costs     Technology             Training
      governance
                          relationships
                                                                                               Realized
                                                  Program                                     structural
                                                                       Benefit              cost improve-         External                           Knowledge
                                                   driven
                                                                       period               ments and TCO       support costs                        management
                                                 strategies
                                                                                            benefits (e.g.,
                                                                                            simplification,
                                                                                               process)
                                                                                                                    Other
                                                                                              e(PV) from
                                                                                             SM enabled
                                                                                              innovation


                                                                                             Less losses
The materials in this document, including without limitation ROSMA©, SMEVA©                 due supplier
and Procurement Management Inventory© constitute the proprietary, copyrighted               performance
materials of A.T. Kearney, Inc.                                                                issues




                                                                                    HIGHER VISIBILITY, GREATER EXPECTATIONS                      |   A.T Kearney
                                                                                                                                                        .           11
More Value to Contribute                                     participated in the study, you can evaluate the
Indirect procurement organizations have signifi-             opportunities that exist for your organization.
cantly more value to contribute. This message                The 2010 Indirect Procurement Study remains
encapsulates the insights from every section of the          open through December 2010. To learn more
study. But what does this mean to an individual              about participating, please email Jan-Fokke Van
indirect procurement leader? How much more                   Den Bosch, Simon Rycraft, Alec Bounds or Julia
value can a particular organization deliver? If you          Trampel.



Authors
Jan-Fokke van den Bosch is a partner and vice president in the procurement and analytics division.
Based in theAmsterdam office, he can be reached at jan.fokke.van.den.bosch@atkearney.com.
Alec Bounds is a consultant in the operations practice. Based in the Atlanta office, he can be reached
at alec.bounds@atkearney.com.
Simon Rycraft is a consultant in the procurement and analytics division. Based in the San Francisco office,
he can be reached at simon.rycraft@atkearny.com.
Julia Trampel is a consultant in the procurement and analytics division. Based in the Düsseldorf office,
she can be reached at julia.trampel@atkearney.com.
A.T. Kearney is a global management consulting firm that uses strategic                                              For information on obtaining
insight, tailored solutions and a collaborative working style to help clients                                        additional copies, permission
achieve sustainable results. Since 1926, we have been trusted advisors on                                            to reprint or translate this work,
CEO-agenda	 issues	to	the	 world’s	leading	corporations	across	all	 major	                                           and all other correspondence,
industries. A.T. Kearney’s offices are located in major business centers                                             please contact:
in 37 countries.

                                                                                                                     A.T. Kearney, Inc.
AMERICAS                     Atlanta | Boston | Chicago | Dallas | Detroit | Mexico City                             Marketing & Communications
                             New York | San Francisco | São Paulo | Toronto | Washington, D.C.                       222 West Adams Street
EUROPE                       Amsterdam | Berlin | Brussels | Bucharest | Copenhagen                                  Chicago, Illinois 60606 U.S.A.
                             Düsseldorf | Frankfurt | Helsinki | Kiev | Lisbon | Ljubljana | London                  1 312 648 0111
                             Madrid | Milan | Moscow | Munich | Oslo | Paris | Prague | Rome                         email: insight@atkearney.com
                             Stockholm | Stuttgart | Vienna | Warsaw | Zurich                                        www.atkearney.com
ASIA PACIFIC                 Bangkok | Beijing | Hong Kong | Jakarta | Kuala Lumpur
                             Melbourne | Mumbai | New Delhi | Seoul | Shanghai | Singapore
                             Sydney | Tokyo

MIDDLE EAST                  Abu Dhabi         |   Dubai    |   Johannesburg          |   Manama        |   Riyadh
& AFRICA




Copyright 2010, A.T. Kearney, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form
without written permission from the copyright holder. A.T. Kearney® is a registered mark of A.T. Kearney, Inc.
A.T. Kearney, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer.

A.T. Kearney Korea LLC is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the A.T. Kearney name in Korea.
PDF ATK.0610.140

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:40
posted:9/23/2011
language:English
pages:16
Global Supply Chain Council Global Supply Chain Council http://www.supplychains.com
About Founded in 2002, the Global Supply Chain Council is Asia’s leading professional organization serving a fast growing community of more than 60,000 executives and representing leading companies who view their value chains as a critical driver of shareholder value and competitiveness. As an independent professional organization, the Council’s mission is to stimulate the understanding and adoption of supply chain management by providing a range of services including websites, magazine, directory, newsletters, research, workgroups, conferences, maps, video programming among other services. Targeting manufacturers and retailers end-users on line, in print and in person, the Council delivers a unique combination of education and lead-generation sources that helps logistics service providers, consultants, and software vendors and equipment suppliers achieve their growth objectives.