Within the larger process of strategic sourcing, a spend analysis is the necessary first step in identifying savings opportunities and providing a baseline for improvement. But surely before having a formal spend analysis (and undertaking a sourcing initiative), companies can already have particular savings opportunities in mind, such as changing to a preferred national or regional supplier. But pre-ordaining a particular course of action, before you have the analysis to back it up, you could set yourself up to achieve inferior results – or at least, not the best results you could possibly get.
In a recent Harvard
Business Review article, finance keynote speaker Joe Knight noted, “most
people use [return on investment] analysis as a way to justify something they
really want to do anyway.” He recounted
how, in a previous job as a CFO, the company’s owner asked him to do an
analysis to justify purchasing a $100k 3-D printer. The idea was that the
printer would reduce instances of rework in the fabrication of component parts,
because often the translation of CAD data into a real-life object revealed
issues in dimensions. Knight provided a quick projection based on five years of
operating and associated costs. He suggested that the analysis might conclude
that it’d be more cost-effective to make due with occasional scrap parts and
rework rather than invest $100k plus ongoing maintenance.
Ultimately, the owner
went ahead with the purchase, saying that Knight’s analysis was wrong. This way
of operating is not just for equipment purchases, but mergers and acquisitions
as well. Knight notes, “Even large companies make investments such as
acquisitions based on irrational projections. The CEO negotiates with a company
he or she wants to acquire. If the numbers don’t work, the CFO is told to
revise the projections so that they do.”
Due diligence exists as
a mechanism to identify risk and, plainly speaking, not do risky things.
Aspirations are great, but you need the numbers to back it up. As we learn in
elementary school studying the Scientific Method, we start with a hypothesis as
the basis for experiment – but we have to accept that our hypothesis can be
disproved. If, after repeat experiments, your results indicate that your
hypothesis was incorrect, then you need a new hypothesis.
When undertaking a cost
savings initiative, companies must keep an open mind to what the spend analysis
will reveal. Maybe migrating to one national supplier, for example, looks
attractive on paper, and could cut down on the number of invoices to manage, or
the number of line items in the ledger. But does migrating to one supplier produce
the most practical savings opportunity? Does it ensure sustainable cost savings? Source One Associate Director and Spend Consultant, Jennifer
Ulrich, will speak at La Salle University’s Business Systems & Analytics Club
this week, covering how a solid spend analysis will provide the best visibility
for decision support – not only for sourcing initiatives but also for any spending
course of action.
Image courtesy of LexisNexis
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours