Procurement strategy Archives

Japanese brewer Asahi is setting up a new global procurement operation in Singapore, according to the Food Navigator Asia website. The target is to save $100 million a year from 2024. The new CEO of the operation is Tomas Veit, who told the publication, “the key focus is currently on creating a strong and capable team to provide efficient and effective services”.

But the bigger issue is the internal dynamics in the firm. What worries me here is this statement from Atsushi Katsuki, President and CEO, quoted in the company’s press release.

“Asahi Global Procurement is the first functional organization of the Asahi Group to be integrated globally. We view this as an initiative to elevate our management to a new level and promote the advancement of overall management. We expect the consolidation of category management and sourcing functions on a global scale to not only create group synergies, but also contribute to solving various issues in the global environment and society, leading to the promotion of sustainable procurement.”

So procurement is the “guinea pig”, the early adopter of a new corporate strategy of more centralisation. I understand why firms often see procurement in that way – it looks like an “easy” area to start the centralisation journey and show rapid savings. But any business school or CIPS course would suggest that procurement strategy must be aligned with corporate strategy. In cases like this, the corporate strategy isn’t changing, and countries or regions still have considerable autonomy. However, the procurement strategy is now mis-aligned, so it is an outlier or an experiment in effect.

That is not to say it cannot work. But Veit will have to be prepared for considerable push-back from those who hold power locally. They won’t just be concerned about losing some power to choose suppliers and make procurement decisions – they will see this as the thin end of the wedge, a wedge that could lead to much more significant power loss if procurement is successful.

There is also the supplier side to consider. Many years ago, I was trying to set up a Eruopean procurement capability for the Dun & Bradstreet Group (when it included about 10 different businesses). We spent a fortune on car hire, so that looked like a fairly easy quick win. I negotiated a great deal with Avis for all the major European countries, leveraging our spend across the continent. The senior European account director for Avis assured me she had given me the very best pricing.

After a few months, I asked our businesses if they were using the deal. No, said our Spanish operations. They weren’t. So which supplier were they using, I asked? “Oh, we’re using Avis, we just get a better deal from the local operation”, they said. That taught me a good lesson – sometimes suppliers aren’t set up to implement global or regional deals. So that’s something for Asahi to consider.

There is also an interesting dilemma for the CPO. I am sure that there is significant value that a central function can bring. That includes areas such as developing skills across the function, potential harmonisation of systems and data, support in specialist areas such as commodity price forecasting, and of course developing strategic and long-term initiatives with the most important global suppliers. It is interesting that sustainability is mentioned explicitly in the press release above; that is certainly an area where I can see some strong potential actions and benefits.

However, the new central team might struggle to show direct “savings” arising from this type of work. Because of that, there may be a temptation to look for those apparently obvious quick win, leverage-based, price-focused savings – my car rental deal, for instance. And those projects can be exactly those that will run into local opposition.

My advice to Veit therefore would be to look for a few large potential quick wins in areas that are not too contentious. Major IT contracts perhaps – some global licence deals or a major deal with a hosting service? Or areas where you are not even asking people to change suppliers. A global set of route deals with Japan Airlines maybe? Then combine that with delivering longer-term value in terms of the longer-term imperatives. Work hard to get the local or regional barons on your side (they can get you fired if you don’t). And remember that bigger deals aren’t always better deals.

But Veit does have one major advantage – several years’ experience already with the firm. That gives him a much higher chance of success than a CPO brought in from outside with what might turn out ot be a controversial mandate. We wish him luck and success.

I’ve had a couple of abortive attempts at writing a book about “procurement transformation”. Perhaps one day it will happen. But my feeling over the years is that often presentations at conferences that claim to be about “transformation” are nothing of the kind. They might be about upskilling the function; or implementing a new piece of software; or launching a category management programme; but the ideas they describe are not really transformative. And in some cases, the central aim or achievement of the programme appears to be simply a reduction in supplier numbers.

There is no doubt that many organisations do have a supply base which is too large to achieve optimal performance or value. So a reduction in supplier numbers can be beneficial – but the point is that it is usually not appropriate to consider supplier reduction as an end in itself. Rather it should be seen as one of the outcomes of a wider procurement improvement or transformation programme.

An excessively large supply base usually develops because of a lack of procurement spend visibility, control or influence. Budget holders decide where and how to allocate their money, leading to fragmented and un-coordinated spend. Hence getting such situations under better management will bring a number of benefits, and an effective procurement programme, probably category management based, will be needed to address matters. And even today, most organisations, in most categories, will find that the result of a well-planned and executed sourcing programme is fewer suppliers in that area.

So supplier reduction as an outcome of an appropriate programme can indicate real benefits have been achieved. Fewer suppliers means more concentrated spend, and there can be benefits from this aggregation. Although economies of scale are over-estimated in many industries and sectors, it is clear that when most organisations look carefully at a category, and find dozens or hundreds of suppliers, they derive benefits when they come to negotiate with a view to reducing that number.

But in some cases, the “right” answer once a spend category is considered will be more suppliers, not fewer. If the analysis shows that the organisation is worryingly dependent on certain suppliers, then that should be the desired approach, for instance. My personal baptism in procurement was a role where I was at the mercy of a monopoly supplier of a vital raw material. It was not a good place to be and I longed for “supplier increase” rather than supplier reduction!

Or even if risk is not the issue, there may be value opportunities through taking a more aggressive and tactical approach to a market, with frequent supplier switching. We should not be afraid of strategies that lead to more suppliers – as long as the benefits are weighed against the true costs of supplier management into account. So here is a summary of key points to consider.

Supplier reduction should be a potential outcome from doing procurement well. It is rarely sensible as an objective or end in its own right, and it is not the most appropriate strategy for every occasion.
Understanding the starting point or baseline is important for any major procurement improvement initiative. And if supplier reduction is part of the business case, it is vital to have a clear and accurate view of the baseline. Supplier numbers are often overstated, though duplication or mis-categorisation, so a spend analysis maybe required as a starting point.
Similarly, if the savings from supplier reduction are going to form part of the business case for a procurement programme, the true cost of managing suppliers needs to be assessed, as well as realistic savings form any re-negotiations, so any savings can be calculated with realism and as much accuracy as possible.
For any category, and certainly before any supplier reduction initiatives are set in train, procurement must ensure that there is a good understanding of the markets, suppliers and associated risks that are being addressed.
Supplier reduction can be a sensitive issue amongst stakeholders and budget holders, who may see their favourite suppliers disappear. The benefits of rationalisation programmes may not be very visible to stakeholders either. So it is important to get the buy-in of your key stakeholders and engage them in the process, particularly if you are trying to make dramatic change.

That last point is important but often disregarded. Managing the internal stakeholder dimension is often more challenging for procurement than managing external markets, and needs significant focus. That is always true, but particularly applies when a major change in the supply base is likely. Indeed, I’ve seen that point in itself be enough to kill procurement change or transformation programmes stone dead.

Tag Archive for: Procurement strategy

Asahi Centralises Procurement – Will It Work?

Procurement “Transformation” and Supply Base Reduction