Through no fault of our own, sometimes the same level of effort results in widely different results (Denmark 1-0-1). Sometimes external factors (US 2 Slovenia 2) play a bigger role in our results than anything we may or may not do. Sometimes the results are exactly as predicted (Brazil 2 N. Korea 1) or modeled. Sometimes they leave the experts shocked and confounded (NZ 1 Italy 1). Sometimes the view of a result is widely varied (US Wins 1-1), based upon the context and perspective of the different participants and evaluators. Sometimes the deck is stacked too high against us to get good results and sometimes any result we get is fine because we really don’t deserve to be there. That’s, as they say, why they play the game. The 32 teams comprising the group play at this year’s World Cup in South Africa, have provided examples of each type of result (as noted by the links and parentheses – google translate found here is useful for a few links). Those of you from the 66 countries outside of the US who have visited CPO Rising since June 1, know that the FIFA World Cup is a quadrennial competition that brings the top national men’s football teams together in a month-long tournament. This year’s contest takes place in South Africa and I am into it, really into it.
I see a parallel between soccer football results (other sports too) and savings results. The amount of savings from a sourcing project, the amount of savings delivered by a sourcing or category team, the amount of savings delivered by an entire department has so many factors (internal and external), so many inputs and nuances, and so many potentially different ways to evaluate the results that it can be challenging and risky, sometimes fair, but sometimes not to place all of your performance eggs in the savings basket.
But we love to play the sourcing/savings/value game and we want to thrive. We need performance metrics to show when we do thrive and what we do contribute. For better or worse, savings is our metric. Ideally, not the sole metric (or consideration), but for most, it is the primary one. Yet, to paraphrase Winston Churchill – Savings is the worst metric ever used to evaluate procurement performance, except for all the others.
Yes, for better or worse, savings is our metric. But, as a function, in the collective, we have to begin to consider, discuss, and develop other ways to evaluate and present procurement performance and procurement’s contribution of value to the larger enterprise.
And now…. off to the land of Buffon and the Azzurri.
