Returning the "Strategic" to Strategic Sourcing (Part 2)
As it relates to supply management and procurement, "strategic" is being misused in at least two respects:
- Form over Substance: Simply adding a few bells and whistles to conventional purchasing, and then slapping the word strategic onto the process or the department name, is not the same thing as adopting the process as it is intended. (This point is made strongly in the book "Straight to the Bottom Line®" by Rudzki, Smock, Katzorke and Stewart)
- Dumbing Down the Process: Equally concerning, are the companies that at one time employed a genuine strategic sourcing process, but have "dumbed down" their process to be a nonstrategic, tactical ghost of what it used to be.
Much to my surprise, that particular blog has been referenced in the recent blogosphere debate regarding "Is Strategic Sourcing Dead?" So let me turn my attention briefly to that particular question. It may be helpful for you to keep in mind the perspective I bring to this subject: first and foremost I'm a former CPO, having led successful procurement transformations in different industries (in other words, I'm a practitioner -- I've actually used this good stuff); second and currently, I'm an adviser to companies seeking to make the transformation journey.
When I present at conferences, I often take the opportunity to poll the audience on various fundamental questions, including whether they are using strategic sourcing in their companies. On a few occasions I've had the opportunity to ask that question at two different points in the presentation: (1) early, before strategic sourcing was defined and described, and (2) later, after a thorough description of strategic sourcing was provided.
Generally, about 40-50% of the audience will raise their hand to the first question, indicating that they believe they are using strategic sourcing today. Less than 20% of the audience raises their hands after hearing a thorough description of strategic sourcing. What does that tell you?
Another relevant anecdote comes out of a recent conversation with a senior executive of a new client of our firm. In a revealing admission, he indicated that "a few months ago we didn't even realize that such a thing as strategic sourcing existed."
These examples, and others from our firm's experience, drive me to offer the following observations:
- "Is Strategic Sourcing Dead?" is the wrong question.
- 25 years after the birth of strategic sourcing, many companies of all sizes still are not aware of "true" strategic sourcing.
- A surprising number of companies believe they are using strategic sourcing, but in fact are not ("form over substance" noted above).
- Some companies who previously used a true strategic sourcing process have since "dumbed down" their process into a tactical ghost of what it used to be.
- Trying to introduce and embed strategic sourcing without the supporting pillars of a transformation roadmap is likely to generate only short-lived benefits.
- Leading-edge companies introduce strategic sourcing as one element of a comprehensive transformation roadmap. These companies are the ones most likely to be using true strategic sourcing (and other best practices) over an extended timeframe, yielding substantial and sustainable value.
TweetBacks






























I whole heartedly agree with your statements and would further characterize the situation as saying that today there is no strategy in today's utilization of strategic sourcing. What used to be an assessment of leverage positions and construction on optimized market baskets has gradually eroded back into 1950's three quotes and a cloud of dust.
As I began noticing this trend at the turn of the century (couldn't resist that phrase), I first thought it was professional laziness, or at best, expedience that had degraded the processes. However, I'm more and more beginning to lean toward your points 3,5 & 6.
It's quite difficult to handle the internal politics necessary to establish and maintain an integrated negotiating position. Internal drivers, personalities and turf war often drive the knee jerk deals that benefit the local operation over the benefits of the group as a whole. In fact, there are several suppliers (who shall go nameless) that count on this very situation to better their pricing position. But I personally believe that all this stems from a poorly articulated value position being accepted and even mandated from senior management. Basically, if the CEO or CFO do not understand the direct impact of a truly strategic approach to how a company spends its funds, then individual businesses and their buyers will continue to do what's most expedient.
One dollar saved in how we spend our money equals one dollar in net income. No one else in the organization can make that claim.