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

July 29, 2010

 

Accenture's Report and the Correct Usage of the Phrase "SRM"

In my view, supplier relationship management (SRM) is a word that ERP vendors have bastardized to fit their description of procurement, sourcing, visibility, and contracting applications. This is a shame because in my view, supplier relationship management is not a category of solutions -- or an alternative phrase used to describe the Spend Management sector. Rather, it refers to the critical, continuous practice of effectively and proactively managing one's supply base. In a recent report on the subject, Accenture defines supplier relationship management "as the systematic management of supplier relationships to optimize the value delivered through the relationship over their life cycle." You can read the highlights of this report by opening the virtual pages of Supply Management, but here are some of the better tidbits from Accenture's SRM study findings based on their survey of 229 procurement executives worldwide:

"Supplier relationship management leaders can realize a threefold increase in benefits. Supplier relationship management leaders achieved savings of 3 percent on their total annual procurement spending from supplier relationship management activities, whereas all respondents achieved 1 percent. This translates to average benefits of €67 million (US$79 million) and €18 million respectively for supplier relationship management leaders and all respondents."

"There is a supplier relationship management skills gap. Supplier relationship management requires supply chain skills that appear to be lacking inside and outside of the procurement department. This is illustrated by the fact that supplier relationship management leaders consider the most important activity to be monitoring supplier performance, yet only 15 percent consider themselves to be experts in this activity."

"Supplier relationship management leaders use collaborative technology. Supplier relationship management leaders demonstrate higher levels of technology adoption across all functional areas of procurement technology. The difference between the supplier relationship management leaders and all respondents is greatest for contract management, business-to-business integration/collaboration and e-sourcing."

"There are industry-specific differences. Among the global survey population, the greatest percentage of supplier relationship management leaders were found in media and entertainment (50 percent); automotive (38 percent); and pharmaceutical, medical products and health (32 percent). The lowest corresponding percentages were found in property and facilities management (0 percent); banking and insurance (5 percent); and industry and manufacturing (8 percent)."

Kudos to Accenture for carrying out this research. It's a good piece of work, and worth spending some quality time digging into on your next flight. Now if only we could convince the firm to train its consultants what incoterms are, I might feel better about recommending them as a strategic Spend Management advisor. Alas, I'd wager that Accenture's research organization -- which puts out these reports -- is separate from its field organization which actually does the client work.

- Jason Busch

Related Blog Entries


TweetBacks
Comments
Eric Strovink's Gravatar Jason, you win the wager, at least on compliance. From what I've observed, there is minimal effort from BPO implementation personnel (be it Accenture, or -- let's avoid bashing just Accenture -- anyone else, including in-house personnel for that matter) to monitor contract compliance.

True contract compliance is resource-intensive work. It requires invoice analysis, manual processing (in many cases) of paper statements, and quality personnel with quality direction performing the compliance monitoring. It is not at all surprising that both in-house and contracted implementation personnel (as well as e-sourcing vendors) basically wave their hands at the issue and move on. They're (justifiably) afraid of burning expensive man-hours on potentially unproductive analyses. But it's time to start listening to the research results and to take some risks. The benefit is potentially huge.

Just knowing that spend is on- or off-contract (which we haven't achieved, either -- let's not pretend that blanket-marking supplier spend as "on contract" is meaningful, when that supplier could be supplying multiple commodities to many different divisions) isn't good enough. Not even close. I saw an example the other day of actual vs. contracted rates for PC's that would curl your hair. Did it show up at some meta-level? Of course not. It was buried in the invoice detail, it was pervasive, and it represented a large opportunity for savings that paid for the analysis effort many times over.
# Posted By Eric Strovink | 6/14/06 5:36 AM
Merlin's Gravatar Eric's comment shows that traditional outsorcers still treats Spend Management Outsourcing like any other BPO play, where the savings models are all built around labour-rate arbitrage not around the much more significant savings drivers of sourcing and compliance.

A team of buyers managing $1b of spend may cost around $10m. Even if you fired *everyone* the maximum you'd save would be only 1% of the purchase cost.
# Posted By Merlin | 6/14/06 5:48 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved