spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

January 06, 2009

 

Catching up with AT Kearney Procurement Solutions

In contrast to IBM's purchase of PWC's consulting arm -- which turned out by virtually all observers to be an extremely effective move -- EDS and AT Kearney never quite clicked after they exchanged vows. But earlier this year, AT Kearney finally got a chance at independence once again when their partners conducted a management buyout of the firm. Much was on the line, as the firm's stellar operational consulting reputation had gone down -- not to mention its pole position for high-end sourcing and supply chain work -- since before the merger. To gauge where AT Kearney was during this rocky period, you can read a few of my earlier posts on them during this time here, here, and here. When I was in grad school in the mid nineties, I can remember how AT Kearney had a reputation approaching that of McKinsey's from a recruiting perspective as a consultancy. But this image dropped off precipitously in the years following the acquisition.

The good news is that since the management buy-out, things have been looking up for the venerable consultancy. Last week, I had the chance to catch up with Joe Raudabaugh and Mike Sorensen of AT Kearney Procurement Solutions. AT Kearney Procurement Solutions is what I would describe as a boutique "firm within a firm" focused exclusively on the Spend Management arena. Procurement Solutions started out less than a decade ago with around 60 staffers, and now counts 150 team members, all of whom specialize in the Spend Management space. While many know that the group offers classic category and event-based sourcing support and consulting capabilities, few I talk to outside of Kearney are aware that Procurement Solutions also delivers data analytics solutions (including spend visibility and analytics) and consortium buying. The eBreviate sourcing technology, which is no longer owned by the group, is now part of UGS (while AT Kearney maintains an agreement with UGS to use the technology, they believe it is important to remain technology neutral from a client decision standpoint).

Procurement Solutions is focused on creating repeatable, expert solutions to Spend Management versus a more traditional management consulting approach which looks at each new procurement and supply chain opportunity from a generalist, one-off analytical lens. According to Procurement Solution's leadership, more sophisticated organizations are most likely to use their services to augment their own capabilities where there is a specific need. In contrast, the management consulting organization is typically a better fit from a sourcing and category basis with clients who are less mature and need greater process help and all around Spend Management expertise and guidance. The exception to this are more sophisticated companies looking to solve abstract problems or those that demand industry specific expertise -- these situations are also a better fit with AT Kearney's more traditional management consulting services arm. But quite often, the two torganizations cross pollinate on projects, joining forces to help clients. Management consulting type-engagements, however, such as a complex make / buy manufacturing analyses, which are large and transformational in nature, are more likely to be led by generalist firm resources than specialized Procurement Solutions ones.

While we did not get into a day or blended rate discussion during the call, I know first hand that Procurement Solutions' rates are significantly less than AT Kearney's management consulting resources (which command some of the highest prices in the market). Still, the rates are not cheap. In other words, Procurement Solutions' pricing is more in line with what more expensive boutiques and the Big 5 charge for operational and strategic consulting. Not inexpensive, but not the highest in the market.

Last month, Procurement Solutions made a small stir at Procuri's Empower event by announcing a relationship with the On Demand supply management vendor. Later in the week, I will analyze this announcement, looking at the Procuri / AT Kearney relationship in detail. In particular, I will plan to explore how AT Kearney is delivering supply markets content to clients -- and now to Procuri customers as well. This content takes the form of commodity specific templates as well as category sourcing updates and insight. Procurement Solution's content push is commendable and one that I'd wager is a sign of things to come in the market. Ariba also offers related supply markets content to customers as well. But other offerings like this are few and far between in the market. I believe the market opportunity for supply markets related content -- from upfront supplier identification through to active supply risk management -- is far larger than many are thinking about at the moment.

- Jason Busch

Related Blog Entries

Comments
For some years I have been pushing the notion at various spend management companies that they should partner with consulting firms. The reasons are straightforward:

1) A spend management company cannot be both a software provider and a consulting services provider. This model causes all kinds of internal friction, because consulting services rates and compensation are wildly out of phase with the compensation of the "regular" employees. And, there is no opportunity for a consultant within a spend management firm to make really big money (i.e. become a partner), which means that market forces cause the best people to leave. This dooms the internal consulting practice to mediocrity, compared to outside firms. Finally, a consulting group must stay at least somewhat agnostic as to tools, or it loses credibility.

2) However, a loose association between a spend management vendor and a consulting firm is good for both companies. All consulting firms are hand-to-mouth organisms, never more than 8 weeks from bankruptcy if their pipeline were suddenly to dry up. A partnership with a spend management vendor can put a consulting firm in contact with a more reliable pipeline of business, so that the partners can sleep better at night. From the spend management vendor's perspective, the relationship allows them to put in front of customers deeply experienced sourcing professionals who can talk directly to benefit (rather than performing some meaningless demonstration of look-alike software that few listeners comprehend). A joint sales call with this kind of muscle works much better than just sending in a random salesperson.
# Posted By Eric Strovink | 10/10/06 6:51 AM
Eric - great points. I think its safe to say almost every spend management solutions provider would love a relationship with any of the big consulting firms (especially smaller companies). From my perspective, the consulting firms themselves aren't embracing the solutions providers, and in my opinion, for the reasons listed below(would love to hear your feedback):

-Spend Management Solutions deals today often contain more services $$'s (consulting, hosting, data prep, technical) and less software $$'s than in the past (some, like Ariba, now get the majority of their revenue from services), so a partnership would simply move revenue from the consulting firm to the Spend Management Solutions provider or visa versa.

-In situations where the solution is mostly software, in more cases than not the software would replace billable resources at the consulting firm (good example is catalog and content management). Despite the opportunity for higher software margins on basically the same revenue, the managing partners are usually measured on billable resource hours.

...what seems to work are situations where the consulting firm can use the software to maintain or generate additional services revenue (billable hours)...and even these relationships take many, many months, even years to get going because of the disruption of the consulting business model of driving billable hours.

What needs to change? I guess if consultants change their focus from billable hours to deal margin, they'd embrace software solutions, especially automation and BPO type applications. Also, when the clients start pushing back when they can buy a $300K software solution that's an improvement over the services they're probably paying millions for annually, the consultants will have to adopt and find the margin they've lost...
# Posted By Gary Hare | 10/10/06 7:36 AM
Lisa R., I'm waiting for you to chime in here with your story around automation and consulting, but needless to say, the amount of rework most consultancies have in each project would get them kicked out of the private sector. Sure, I believe in generalist analytical skill sets, but what about standardization and repeatability? Some firms really stink in this regard and suffer from a margin perspective because of it (e.g., Deloitte, which has an “intellectually pure” view that you should start from scratch each time you're on a project (Lisa you should chime in here). Others like McKinsey are better at knowledge capture and standards, as is AT Kearney, especially in their Procurement Solutions group. Incidentally, Ariba's -- actually the old FMKT GSO – sourcing services group is solid in this regard as well -- especially since they adopted a lean, shared services approach to managing resources and knowledge. But I'd agree -- like you guys -- that there is tremendous room for improvement in the consulting space by better using applications to manage knowledge and processes -- just as in the private sector. And consultants should NEVER be in the software business. It’s not a good cultural or process fit.
# Posted By jason Busch | 10/10/06 7:48 AM
Very interesting post from the perspective of productized, or packaged, services. Without doubt, standardized services will reduce risk on many types of consulting engagements.<a href="http://projectfailures.com/blog/2006/10/10/productized-services-at-kearny.html">I have blogged about this post here.</a>

Michael Krigsman
<a href="http://projectfailures.com">http://projectfailures.com</a>
# Posted By Michael Krigsman | 10/10/06 8:56 AM
Sorry for the HTML screwup in the previous comment.

Forward-thinking consulting organizations are already making the transition to productized services. For example, see the recent announcement by IBM in this regard. Cognos and SAP are additional examples of companies that are fully engaged in this transition.

The shift from open-ended engagements to services bounded by time, cost, and deliverables will not be easy for many organizations to make. In addition to helping client's understand the transition, it is often non-trivial for consultant's inside the organization to get onboard.

Previous commentors have mentioned the compensation problem. But that's just the starting point. The real problems begin when an organization realizes it must redefine how it delivers its core services it. Again, not and easy challenge to overcome.

I have been blogging quite a bit about this issue, because it is central to reducing IT project implementation failures.

Michael Krigsman
http://projectfailures.com
# Posted By Michael Krigsman | 10/10/06 9:25 AM
Gary - Actually, we think that relationships with smaller firms are more effective. Large firms have external motivations that influence their decision-making processes, such as the fact that they typically make their real money on turn-the-crank BPO or ERP implementations. This narrows their point of view and chosen solution set.

Your points are interesting, and let me try to address some of them briefly:

- Services. It is true that margins are falling fast on spend management software (which is great, by the way), and to make up the difference the legacy players are peddling services. However, I don't think that in-house consulting resources will be able to compete head-to-head with outside consulting firms. The thought leaders in the space will end up where the money is, and that is most definitely not inside the doors of some spend management vendor. Also, as a customer stakeholder, I'm not likely to bet my career on the supposition that a product vendor with an obvious built-in bias is really offering an impartial, optimal, and fully-informed view as to what I should be doing.

- I don't think it's necessarily true that software replaces billable resources at the consulting firm. Our consulting partners use our product (BIQ) to deliver a stronger pitch to clients, and to deliver high value more quickly than they could previously. This in turn allows them to suggest follow-on work with higher confidence, for example gain-share sourcing that costs the client nothing. I also see an increasing trend at our customers toward Balkanization of effort, in that some categories are handled in-house, and others are outsourced to consultants with expertise in particular complex commodities (commercial print, for example). Consultants can propose incremental work and have it close quickly, as opposed to proposing more nebulous engagements which are more difficult to sell. All of this flexibility is enabled by better information at both the customer and the consulting firm -- which of course derives direclty from the use of spend management tools.

- With regard to ongoing maintenance services, nothing prevents consulting firms from using labor arbitrage to offload work and to maintain long-term customer contact. Many are now doing exactly that. I would argue that the "old-fashioned" consulting model -- namely that consultants should go in, perform a study, present the results, and leave -- is being replaced with a higher-touch model, where the consulting firm continues to play an advisory role, for example a quarterly or bi-annual opportunity assessment or progress review. This keeps the door open to selling more services to the customer when new opportunities for sourcing become apparent, which can be highly beneficial to both parties.

Thanks for the dialog!
# Posted By Eric Strovink | 10/10/06 10:04 AM
There was an analyst named Pierre Mitchell that wrote some stuff on this over five years ago. It requires an AMR subscription, but is a pretty good read. I'll let someone else cut-and-paste content - not I.

http://www.amrresearch.com/Content/View.asp?pmilli...
http://www.amrresearch.com/content/View.asp?pmilli...
# Posted By Sir Toby | 10/11/06 8:41 AM
Eric - thanks for the response.

My perspective is based on the area of Spend Management that my company serves...supplier enablement/SRM, specifically for MRO/Indirect catalogs and Internet EDI. It may not be applicable to other categories of spend management (sorry for any confusion).

Here's a real life example we're working thru right now with one of the large consultancies. In a few months and at an annual cost of well under $500K turnkey, we can deliver clients an almost 100% transaction enabled Indirect / MRO supply chain using our patent-pending software product, fully supported, if they worked with us directly. The same task takes the consultants multiple years at a cost of millions of dollars (mainly because its done 100% with services). The delimma for the managing partner (and us) is how to make this work within their current business model, with minimum changes, which will accelerate adoption. He knows our product will satisfy his client, but could cost him some short term revenue (automating tasks currently done with people). He knows the software can create better margins per engagement, and attract more engagements...but he's measured on how many billable hours he's delivers. To work together, we need to incorporate our offering into his, protect his current billable hours best possible, and find a way to differentiate our direct offering from the joint-offering. The good news is we're making progress.

In the end, I think we're both saying the same thing, which is simply that there's much opportunity for consultancies to leverage spend management vendor's solutions for the benefit of customer's, but both sides (vendors / consultancies) need to accept that some changes in past and current business models are required. Thanks again for the feedback.
# Posted By Gary Hare | 10/12/06 7:53 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2008 Spend Matters Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved.