Elevated pricing - supplier cooperation gone bad

Today's Globe and Mail reports that the European Union (EU) has fined Otis, ThyssenKrupp, Kone, and Schindler, Mitsubishi Elevator some US$1.3B for colluding to fix prices in Europe (appeals expected). I expect a resounding silence from industry lobby groups on this one. Lobby groups like to be loud and clear about the value of working closely with suppliers, that "strategic partnerships" are more valuable than commercial relationships, and that buyers should trust their supply partners with more of a firm's value chain.

I agree ... but in the words made famous by Ronald Reagan "doveriai, no proveriai". On more than one occasion I have enforced a right to audit supplier invoices. The first time I did it was when I was working for CN Railways, the supplier was (and is) a Canadian subsidiary of a global "MRO" parts supplier.

The relationship was worth about C$12 million a year, mostly driven through a huge number of small dollar transactions. Work to integrate the supplier into our EDI system led the team to wonder about the quality of the data feed from the invoices (a polite way of saying that their pricing seemed wacked). We had the right to audit, and on 24 hours notice put a couple of internal auditors into the supplier's offices. We agreed to sample about 1000 invoices and share the results with the supplier. We found that roughly 50% of the invoices had pricing errors which pointed to our concern about the quality of their data system, when we also observed that about 83% of the errors were in the supplier's favour it suggested that we might also have an ethical concern about their behaviour. The difference between contracted prices and invoiced prices was roughly $1M (8% of the C$12 million in sales). For a railway that only made $75M in profit that year, it was pretty significant.

The very talented guys over at "The Buying Triangle" are working on this type of problem (and others). Here's how they describe a portion of their solution:

Analyzing costs of goods and services—the third node on The Buying Triangle—can
be difficult to validate without effective price discovery. After contracts are
negotiated, the work of determining whether savings are real or theoretical
still lies ahead. This is often complicated by factors such as:

* the best pricing may be for items rarely used much of what you buy may actually be off-contract
* you can't validate contract compliance because you can't produce a detailed breakdown of historical purchases

I suspect that some of the buyers who experienced "elevated pricing" in Europe got the "verify" bit right. What are you doing to verify your supplier contracts?

Cheers,

David Rotor

If we keep quiet maybe nobody will notice - good supplier cooperation

For cell phone companies in Canada it might seem that the Ides of March are a day early this year. But if they are feeling a sense of impending doom, they're doing a great job of keeping it to themselves. As I wrote back in December, wireless number portablility (WNP) is finally arrving in Canada on March 14th. You wouldn't know it from the industry's advertisements, as Catherine Maclean writes in the Globe and mail "The lack of advertising, however, shouldn't be surprising. Some observers predict the move could lead to an uptick in so-called churn, or customer turnover, as unhappy subscribers, who are wedded to their phone number, head for the exit signs."

I am all for the awkwardly named WNP, having seen it work to great advantage in other countries. I can also support the position cell phone companies are taking, none of them are advertising this pretty significant change in their industry but they aren't doing anything illegal, colluding, or misleading their consumers. Where am I going with this comment ... see my next post.

Cheers,

David Rotor