Comments on: Debate: Mandate or Sell? Implementing eSourcing 2.0

By: Andrew Bartolini

Andrew Bartolini — Fri, 21 May 2010 20:41:48 +0000

Jim

I’m on the eSourcing 2.0 campaign trail next week again, but back in my office next Thu & Fri (am) if you would want to coordinate a call (with yourself and/or management) to talk through different strategies in more detail. Send me an email (found on the “About Author” page or by clicking my name on this reply), would be happy to chat. This offer is open to other CPO Rising readers too.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 21 May 2010 19:30:58 +0000

We are in the process of rolling out an eSourcing tool right now and this decision is yet to be made for us. There has been a lot of debate but I feel that the correct answer will be mandate. The real question is if the leadership even has this ability. The organization has only had a sourcing team in place for two years and our categories range in compliance from 30% to 60%. We need better than this and feel that an eSourcing tool will probably bring similar results even though the business case states that it will increase compliance.

I am not sure that it is the right approach but we are taking a wait and see approach hoping that the compliance comes naturally. I could continue on why we are taking this approach but it would not interest your readers….

By: Adam Hoy

Adam Hoy — Sun, 09 May 2010 20:44:56 +0000

Apologies for being late to the debate, but I think it is important to provide some clarity on the question. As we all know, Procurement can be involved in the vendor selection process and not necessarily use “eSourcing” to run the process.

As I see it, there are 3 possibilities;

1.Procurement is not involved in the sourcing process.
2.Procurement is involved in the process, but doesn’t necessarily use an “eSourcing” tool.
3.Procurement is involved in the process and uses an eSourcing tool (i.e. Ariba).

In my opinion, a mandate for Procurement to be involved in the sourcing decision at an identified spend threshold ($100k, for example) is ideal. At that point, Procurement can then “sell” advanced sourcing tools as relationships are built. In my experience, once Procurement has shown value to their internal clients, they are very open to suggestions and techniques that will add additional value.

By: Andrew Bartolini

Andrew Bartolini — Thu, 06 May 2010 16:40:41 +0000

Still early innings but after two, it’s Mandate 2 Sell 0 —- who else has an opinion?

By: Rajiv

Rajiv — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:47:34 +0000

Mandate without doubt with proper checks and balances in system. Companies which tried to put process checks earlier used to question why esourcing could be used for this, the scenario needs to be reversed now with the new question being – why esourcing can not be used – all such cases requiring an exception and reviewed periodically.

Rajiv

By: Andrew Bartolini

Andrew Bartolini — Tue, 04 May 2010 04:44:07 +0000

Thanks for the comments Gregg!

All — That’s one big, well-respected vote for Mandate? Anyone else care to weigh in?

By: Gregg Brandyberry

Gregg Brandyberry — Sat, 01 May 2010 02:27:26 +0000

So as I’ve been saying for about 18 months …. “There’s never been a better time to create your own stimulus”. And the fastest way for a corporation to do this is to do a better job of buying 3rd party goods and services. I can’t think of a better way to both “amplify” and “accelerate” savings than using eSourcing. In the last 10 years that I was at pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline we conducted over 35,000 events in over 60 countries and had around 50,000 suppliers registered online. Huge incremental savings were delivered year-on-year and continues today. I see nothing wrong with a mandate. Need to combine mandate with ongoing education to the business clients you support. Just be prepared for some business clients to try every “trick in the book” (at least those that prefer cozy supplier relationships) ….