Yet another supply risk post

The usual suspects of smart supply guys ...

Michael (Sourcing Innovation) - here - here - here (and many more)
Tim (Supply Excellence) - here - here - here (and also many more)
Jason (Spend Matters) - here - here - here (and you guessed it ... many more)

... keep trying to make us pay attention to supply risk. A recent quote from Michael "Your supply chain will be disrupted. Bet on it. You'll win." If only some of the brain trust in the Toronto and Calgary offices of Imperial Oil (Esso) had been paying attention. While it's been making news for a week or so, (and hitting our wallets) today's Globe and Mail article on the retail gasoline supply chain disruption in Ontario provides a nice summary of how it happened.

1. Take a couple of refinery fires to constrain production.
2. Add in the winter closing of the St. Lawrence Seaway (if you're not familar with the seaway, or perhaps more importantly if you think you do, spend some time on their site to gain an appreciation of just how important this stretch of water is to the North American economy) to limit alternative distribution
3. Simmer with a rail strike to further limit distribution

The result has been a 25% spike in retail prices for gasoline and "dozens" of gas stations being closed due to lack of gasoline. If this can happen in Ontario in a widely competitive commodity market like retail gasoline what are the odds that it can happen in your supply chain? If you disagree would you care to take me up on Michael's bet? Thought not.

Cheers,

David Rotor

Outsourcing business cases

I'm spending some time thinking through an outsourcing business case. The client has an expectation that the proposal will fit into their existing budget for the function (procurement and payables), independent legacy systems will be retired and new functionality will be added with the introduction of an integrated system, and ideally costs will be lowered. On the other side the service provider understandably wants to do all that, and turn a reasonable profit. So far, so good.
The difficulty is that the service provider's business case is turning up at about 150% of the existing budget. The work can be pretty quickly broken down into three areas to explore, plus one more:

The existing budget

This is a classic outsourcing issue, service provider's routinely strive to identify expand what's included in the existing budget, and client's routinely try to limit what's included. Direct costs are reasonably straight forward to nail down, allocated indirect costs such as contributions for space, corporate technology, support functions such as HR and accounting, are the usual areas that cause conflicts, and can determine whether a deal proceeds or fails.

The service provider's cost model

This tends to be a great area for "pursuit teams" (sales) to delve into in great depth. Most large outsourcing service providers have built wonderfully complex cost models to help them capture what it will cost to service an account. Routinely, I'll find that there is a bit of a fortress mentally around the cost model and it can often be as difficult to get the team to disclose line item details from the cost model as it is to get the client to share detailed budget information.

The first area to explore is whether the costs are market based or internally derived - don't accept the assertion from the cost team that they are market based, go and test the market yourself.

The second area to test is whether the internal costs have been inflated with an internal mark-up, again the cost team will routinely suggest they do not mark up costs, prove it for yourself.

The third area to examine are the overheads, are there too many people loaded onto the deal, are there costs loaded such as standard space or technology charges for people that have already had those costs modelled as direct costs for the contract, etc.

Going back over the last decade I've seen numerous cases where the cost team has contributed to proposals being, literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the market.

The service provider's pricing model

There is often little a pursuit team can do about the margin the company wants to earn from a contract, you win or lose in the market and margins will be adjusted to reflect that reality. What the pursuit team can do is vigorously target the "risk" model that can increase or decrease the margin calculation. Most (likely all) the major outsourcing service providers have developed formal risk management frameworks in their internal deal approval process. The one for the deal I'm looking at now runs about 200 questions, such as: Is the proposed deal a "factory" deal or a "fortress" deal? “Factory” means that it can be managed in a shared service facility, “fortress” means it is a unique offering that is customized for the client. Fortress deals have, in the model, a higher risk factor, and the discount rate applied to the price model is increased. Each of the 200 or so questions have similar impact on the discount rate. The pursuit teams need to spend time understanding the risk model, but often it is viewed as an administrative exercise, and the pursuit team doesn't ever really understand how the model will impact the success or failure of their proposal.

Strategic Sourcing

Outsourcing teams should also consider lowering the cost of goods and services in the function they are taking over by using strategic sourcing. I won't get into it in this post, but it's often possible to lower those costs by 10% or more, enough that many deals will live or die on the application of sourcing to the deal. Spending time to have an expenditure analysis performed to determine if there is an opportunity is well worth considering.

Cheers,

David Rotor