e procurement space maturity assessment srm+ ver

SRM focuses on the value created by the combination of traditional SRM applications “+” best of breed, niche, third-party solutions.

srm

+

+

Extending the value of traditional SRM applications

StrategicProcurement

Consulting

2

Contents eProcurement Space Maturity Assessment• Introduction• Models & Evolution• Model Overview Matrix• Model Maturity Assessment• Appendix

3

Contents Introduction• eProcurement Defined• The Current State • Opportunities & Focus• Solution Drivers

4

Introduction What is eProcurement?• Wiki defines “procurement” as “the acquisition of appropriate goods and/or

services at the best possible total cost of ownership to meet the needs of the purchaser in terms of quality and quantity, time, and location”.

• Procurement typically involves tasks such as sourcing, requesting, approving, ordering, receiving, and settling

• eProcurement is the automation of the those same tasks as well as the integration of all related parties so as to minimize the total cost of ownership to the procuring org.

5

Introduction The Current State of eProcurement• Models continue to mature, but at slower pace– eProcurement not so much a finished state, more of a continual evolution– Fewer newer eProcurement companies/solutions being created– Fewer existing eProcurement companies/solutions failing– Most dramatic value being created by third-party solutions

– Niche software products providing superior tools/functionality– Managed services allowing buying orgs to share resources– External settlement tools allowing buying orgs to reduce

invoice/payment labor while simultaneously creating revenue (up to 1.4% of contract spend)

• eProcurement’s current advances are less about a technology revolution and more about a business revolution enabled by technologies and managed services

• Today’s best practice offerings stable, reliable, 100+ installs, quantifiable and repeatable value proposition across all industries

6

Introduction Opportunities & Focus• Focus on non-production procurement, > 10% of spend (trillions)• Current CEO & CFO direction driven by increasing value with decreasing

amounts of spend and resources– Driving ever-increasing amounts of spend on contract– Reducing order-processing cost and cycle times– Providing intuitive, enterprise-wide access to professionally negotiated

content– Empowering desktop requisitioning through employee self-service– Achieving procurement s/w integration with back office systems– Elevating procurement function to strategic importance within organization– Maximizing solution value via alignment; IT, operations, 3rd party partnering

7

Introduction Solution Drivers• All eProcurement models attempting to solve similar business problems –

reduce complexity and overall cost structure (i.e. total cost) while increasing content availability– Increase exposure of spend under management; low-hanging fruit maxed out– Decrease operational support requirements

– Supplier information– Content Mgt– Transactional– Managing by transaction rather than exception

– Decrease change mgt support requirements– Reduce search algorithm complexity– Reduce org communications for new content

– Decrease maverick buying (AKA rogue spend)– Increase and/or generate settlement revenue

8


9

Contents Models & Evolution

• eProcurement Model Overview• The EDI Model

– Functionality Assessment– Pros/Cons– Scorecard

• The Internet Model– Functionality Assessment– Pros/Cons– Scorecard

• The Direct Connect Model– Functionality Assessment– Pros/Cons– Scorecard

• The Third-Party Model– Functionality Assessment– Pros/Cons– Scorecard

10

eProcurement Model Overview

EDIBuyer EDI VAN Supplier

TDCC standardized railroad communication format in 1968; later refined into “X12”. Heavy adoption in 80s/90s. Being replaced by XML.

Internet PortalsBuyer Portal Supplier(s)Suppliers and distributors leveraged internet in mid 90s by creating Portals.

Direct Connect (AKA Hub N Spoke)Buyer (Hub) Supplier(s)Internet technologies allowed buyers to connect to supplier directly or via a gateway or “hub”

Third-Party IntegrationBuyer Third-Parties Supplier(s)Beginning in late 90s buyer used connection tools to integrate ordering process with preferred suppliers.

High Level Time Line1968 Present

11

EDI - eProcurement Model The EDI Model• Buying and supplying orgs send/receive standardized “documents” via

intermediary network (AKA hub)• No application integration • Revenue per transaction

Period Description (1968 – 1994) • 1968 – Transportation Data Communication Committee (TDCC) standardizes

documents specific to moving freight internationally• Mid 80s – Order transmission “documents” further standardized to become

“X12” (the prevailing standard used today)• Late 90s – Adoption begins to wane, relative to newer technologies (XML)

Major Players• Current Players: 123EDI, GHX, Gentran, Covalent Networks, True

Commerce, 1EDI Source, Kleinschmidt, EC Grids, Pro EDI, Data Masons, Radley

12

EDI - eProcurement Functionality ERP Supplier and Requester Portals• Not avail within this time frame; neither EDI nor application technologies

supported internal or external portals RFx (RFQ, Buyer & Seller Auction)• Activities were manual, not supported by the technologies available at the

time Content Management• Not Avail - EDI is order trans tech, doesn’t allow for application integration

Order Transmission• Transmits wide range of transactions ranging from orders through invoices• Requisition/content integration not supported

Settlement• Limited settlement support – invoice transmission supported, payment

transmission not supported

13

EDI - eProcurement Pros/Cons Advantages of EDI Model Vs Prior Model• Tested, secure, scalable trans communication tool• Saves money versus manual transaction entry

Disadvantages of EDI Model• Requires specialized relationships• Implementation and maintenance timely/costly• Value Added Network (VAN) performance contracts rigid, inflexible• Limited success adapting to open sourcing, flexible supply chain world• 3rd party integration (content mgt, settlement mgt) non-existent• Limited value – unable to work with newer application integration framework• Antiquated technology; new development focused on application integration

14

EDI – Maturity ScorecardImmature Maturing Mature Comments

Supplier MgtNot Offered

RFx Not Offered

Content Mgt Not Offered

Order Mgt Established, mature, scalable, safe transaction communication technology

SettlementNot Offered

Transaction MgtLimited (supplier can manage through hub, requester most often disconnected from managing transactions)

Overall ValueOverall value substantial when compared to performing tasks manually, less valuable when compared to using newer technologies. Costs tend to outweigh benefits in relation to using newer transaction communication methods – especially when the management of those communications are outsourced to a third-party content mgt firm.

Maturity Assessment

While the EDI model is established, scalable, and secure, it offers limited functionality and is expensive to support. It is currently being replaced by newer “messaging” technologies. In addition, the mgt of these technologies and their transactions can be outsourced; hence, they can be performed more effectively and at a lower cost. This model has no “net new” implementations and is continually being replaced. For these reasons, the EDI model is rated “MATURE - IN DECLINE”.

15

Internet - eProcurement Model The Internet Model• Buying orgs manually access supplier/distributor portals for contract content• RFQ leveraged for fixed-price, sealed bid functionality• Web site data manually copied into ERP applications • Provider revenue subscription, advertising, and transaction fee based

Period Description (1995 – 1999) • 1995 – larger suppliers (technology, office supplies, etc.) create internet portals

displaying products at corporate prices• 1998 – Product aggregation portals appear; display/sell products created and

warehoused by manufacturer, handle payment, and allow for one PO from procuring org with aggregator splitting into per-supplier orders

• > 97% of Internet players disappear within 5 years Major Players• Survivors – SciQuest (life-sciences catalog), Ketera, Perfect Commerce,

Staples.com, Grainger.com, Amazon, eBay, Priceline.com• Failures – AdAuction, WellBid, Bidcom.com, Freemarkets, VerticalNet,

BizBuyer.com, PurchasePro, MediBuy.com, MRO.com, Neoforma, Pets.com, PaperExchange, and over 100 other IPOs/businesses

Worksheet

16

Internet - eProcurement Functionality ERP Supplier and Requester Portals• ERP portals not avail within this time frame• Application/Internet technologies just beginning to come online in late 90s

RFx (RFQ, Buyer & Seller Auction)• Functionality offered via external web site, buyers/suppliers connect there• No integration with ERP applications

Content Management• Portals allow suppliers to offer content at org-specific pricing• Procuring orgs send one order, aggregator splits and manages shipping

Order Transmission• Order transactions not supported

Settlement• Settlement not supported

17

Internet - eProcurement Pros/Cons Advantages of Internet Model Vs Prior Model• Online sites allow for buyer/supplier integration• Forward/Reverse auction now possible• Non-Production content available at contract price• Non-Production content requires no support

Disadvantages of Internet Model• Portals “inch deep, mile wide”• Requires specialized relationships• Limited availability/supplier adoption• No 3rd party integration (content mgt, settlement mgt)• Limited value – Content needs to be re-copied into ERP– All reqs must be “re-sourced”, no auto-sourcing, buyer required

18

Internet – Maturity ScorecardImmature Maturing Mature Comments

Supplier MgtNot Offered

RFxOffered, but all data exists in external applications which are not integrated; limited reporting, additional technology costs, and rekeying of data

Content MgtOffered, but not integrated; data must be rekeyed, high error rate, limited value

Order Mgt Not Offered

Settlement Not Offered

Transaction MgtNot Offered

Overall ValueOverall value substantial when compared to creating and managing items internally, less valuable when compared to using newer technologies or “managed services” (having a content mgt firm share this resource across all its clients). However, this model was completely replaced as technologies improved and buying orgs integrated their applications with supplying orgs in future models.

Maturity AssessmentWhile the Internet model is established, scalable, secure, and simple in a technology sense, it offers functionality that has since been replaced by newer technology (B2B shopping carts via fully integrated applications with XML messaging for transactions). For this reason, the Internet model is rated “MATURE - OBSOLETE”.

19

Direct Connect - eProcurement Model The Direct Connect Model• Buyers/suppliers connect to suppliers directly or via third-party “trading

exchange” (AKA hub)• Buyers/suppliers connect to third-parties for content and settlement• Suppliers manage own data via external portals (self-service)• Requesters mange own transactions via internal portals (self-service)• Hub & settlement provider revenue per transaction or per catalog

Period Description (2000 – 2006) • 1999 – Ariba buys TRADEX as stock market floods connectivity toolset

companies with cash.• > 47% of Direct Connect players disappear within 5 years

Major Players• Survivors – Ariba• Business Model Transformation – SciQuest, Ketera, Perfect Commerce; re-

invent themselves as SaaS (strategic procurement applications/services)• Failures – Opensite, Requisite Technologies, CommerceOne, Vignette,

WebMethods, workspace, Exterprise, and over 30 other IPOs/businesses

20

Direct Connect - eProcurement Functionality ERP Supplier and Requester Portals• New “SRM” application front-ends allow for both supplier/requester portals

RFx (RFQ, Buyer & Seller Auction)• All RFx activities now available via portals, fully integrated

Content Management• XML technologies now allow for connection to external catalogs (supplier and

aggregators)• Remaining content created and managed internally

Order Transmission• All prior EDI transaction documents now able to be transmitted via XML

Settlement• Real time 3rd party settlement tools leverage new technologies and allow

procuring orgs to create significant revenue streams by connecting to third-party services

21

Direct Connect - eProcurement Pros/Cons Advantages of Internet Model Vs Prior Model• Reductions in content mgt, supplier mgt, and transaction support costs• Single sourcing / auto-sourcing• Requesters able to configure products

Disadvantages of Internet Model• Limited requester adoption; confusion over search algorithm• Limited supplier adoption; only certain types offer internet-accessible content• Decrease in content control; changes to scope and pricing without consent

22

Direct Connect – Maturity ScorecardImmature Maturing Mature Comments

Supplier MgtSupplier management activities can easily be performed using supplier portals. These portals allow supplying orgs to easily manage their own information within the buying org’s SRM/ERP application. This is a big upgrade over previous models.

RFx

RFx functionality was offered and represented a major advancement over prior models. These tasks can now be performed within the buying org’s ERP/SRM application. In addition supplying orgs can access their information and manage their bids within the sourcing event.

Content MgtContent management can be performed, but only with limited value. Content support costs are reduced, but requester confusion, transaction support, compliance, buyer admin tasks, and change mgt efforts ramp considerably.

Order MgtTransactions can easily be transmitted via XML technologies. This model is replacing EDI – easier to implement and much more cost effective

SettlementInvoice transmission is supported, but no “managed services” component is available for payment/settlement. Value gain is good, but limited.

Transaction Mgt

This was a great advance for this model. ERP/SRM applications provide for “my requisition” page allowing requesters to follow their transaction through its lifecycle – major transaction support cost reduction…for the requesters who could figure out how to create requisitions

Overall ValueThis model represented a major advancement; supply mgt and transaction support costs were dramatically reduced, reverse auctions reduced item price and created revenue from unused inventory, and XML technologies w standardized documents made transaction communication cost effective and widely adoptable. However, catalog support for non-punch-out, the lack of control with punch-out (pricing, scope, contract id), limited requesters adoption (general acquisition confusion), and the huge change management efforts required by this model limited its promise.

Maturity AssessmentThe Direct Connect model is established and impactful. However, it remains ill-suited for highly dynamic pricing, services procurement, non-requisitionables, cap ex and more, while offering little in payment automation. At present, this model is not considered “best practice”; its content mgt and settlement mgt functions are being replaced via third party niche applications and services. For this reason, the Direct Connect model is rated “MATURE - IN DECLINE”.

23

Third-Party Integration - eProcurement Model The Third-Party Integration Model• Provide value added services to increase “stickiness”• Next generation / hybrid cataloging constructs – “proxy” catalogs, self-

managed catalogs, “live price call”, forms (all linked to contract id)• Business changes driving revolution; procuring organization, supplier

contracts, sourcing process, content mgt & settlement processes re-designed to leverage new technologies/services

• Product search becomes change mgt tool (“single-search”)• Centralized applications and managed services drive value• Creation of significant revenue streams via third-party settlement tools

Period Description (2006 – Present)• Applications and services continue to mature, but at slower pace• Business evolution and app/service integration/adoption create the value

Major Players• Leaders – SciQuest, Bank of America ePayables• “Fast Followers” - Ariba, Ketera, Perfect Commerce, Emptoris, GHX, JPMC

Xign

24

Third-Party Integration - eProcurement Functionality ERP Supplier and Requester Portals• New “SRM” application front-ends allow for both supplier/requester portals

RFx (RFQ, Buyer & Seller Auction)• All RFx activities now available via portals, fully integrated

Content Management• XML technologies now allow for connection to external catalogs (supplier and

aggregators)• Remaining content created and managed internally

Order Transmission• All prior EDI transaction documents now able to be transmitted via XML

Settlement• Real time 3rd party settlement tools leverage new technologies and allow

procuring orgs to create significant revenue streams

25

Third-Party Integration - eProcurement Pros/Cons Advantages of Third-Party Model Vs Prior Model• Outsourced content mgt & improved content mgt tools reduce procuring org

support costs• Portals reduce supplier information support costs• Single-search reduces transaction support costs, rogue spend; increases

requester adoption and satisfaction• Single-sourcing, auto-sourcing decrease buyer transaction support• New cataloging constructs (hosted catalogs, proxies items, live price calls,

self-managed catalogs) increase content control, allow for more spend to be driven on contract

• Integration technologies and UNSPSC coding allow for Contract ID, Item ID assignment to marketplace purchases; improving contract spend reporting & facilitating inventory/production support

• External settlement vehicles allow firms to create impactful revenue streams (procurement cost centers becoming cash centers); up to .5% of total spend

Disadvantages of Third-Party Model• Procuring data external to SRM/ERP application• Duplication of production content

26

Third-Party Integration – Maturity ScorecardImmature Maturing Mature Comments

Supplier MgtSame as Direct Connect Model - portals allow supplying org self-service.

RFx Same as Direct Connect Model - RFx/supplier portals allowed supplying orgs to manage their own sourcing events.

Content Mgt

Major advancement – 95% of content management activities now outsourced. Third-party content managers offer better loading, managing, and requesting tools. Items and ad hoc reqs now easily attached to contracts. Third-party resources educate supply base to understand eprocurement and enablement process/value. Altering supply contracts allows “we source, you enable” model. Expanded content structures allow ALL content to be represented ( “amazonian-simple” acquisition process), change dramatically reduced.

Order MgtSame as Direct Connect Model – transactions easily transmitted via XML technologies.

Settlement

Major advancement – settlement functions now integrated with third-party settlement services. Per-transaction, per-vendor, per-department, etc transaction accounts created and transmitted to supplier. Maximize control, reduce invoice/payment transaction labor, create revenue from rebate streams. These services are continuously improving and offer major value

Transaction MgtSame as Direct Connect Model – transactions still managed within ERP/SRM application

Overall Value

Large ERP software vendors build and deploy software. They are not in the business of helping their clients create and manage their internal transactions. This allows a unique set of third-parties to add value. Content mgt SaaS vendors provide better software (improved content mgt and item search) and assist clients with the creation of item catalogs and transaction support. Settlement mgt services allow ERP/SRM clients to leverage global settlement networks, reducing invoice/payment support costs while creating revenue. Third-party apps and services represent the biggest value advancement in business software and services since the packaged application itself.

Maturity AssessmentThe Third-Party Model is established and impactful. Unlike other models it is continuously evolving, particularly its settlement offerings, but at a manageable rate. Its solutions have been widely implemented and are adding dramatic value for 100+ organizations globally. This model has been considered best practice since 2006 by Gartner and others. For this reason, the Third-Party Model is rated “MATURE – BEST PRACTICE”.

27


28

eProcurement Model Overview MatrixEDI Internet Direct Connect 3rd-Party Int.

Timeframe 1968 - 1994 1995-2000 2000-2006 2006-Present

Players 10+, including GHX, Covalent Networks, ProEDI, Data Masons, Radley, Gentran, True Commerce, Kleinschmidt, and 1EDISource.

200+, including AdAuction, Vertical Net, Freemarkets, SciQuest, Staples.com, WellBid, Grainger.com, Neoforma, & PurchasePro

30+, including Ariba, CommerceOne, Ketera, Vinimaya, Vignette, webMethods, GHX, Requisite Technologies, Perfect Commerce, SciQuest, & E2Open

10+ including Ariba, SciQuest, Perfect Commerce, Emptoris, Ketera, Bank of America, JPMC Xign

RFx Not Supported – all RFx actions would be manual & outside ERP

Available via 3rd party (e.g. WellBid), but not integrated into ERP

Integrated into “SRM” app and exposed via self-service

Within SRM, but supplier contracting leverages 3rd party applications and services

Content Mgt

Production: Internal CatsNon-Prod: Ad Hoc, Single Source

Production: Internal CatsNon-Prod: Ad Hoc, Copy from Porta

Production: Internal CatsNon-Prod: Internal Cats & P-Out,

Production: Internal CatsNon-Prod: “Hosted”, Forms Mediated P-Out, & Proxy and Self-Managed Catalogs

Order Processing

Limited transaction support, one-off configuration effort

EDI, Fax, eMail EDI, cXML, Fax, eMailIntegration Broker for content“Portals” for self-service (buyers/Requesters)

EDI, cXML, Fax, eMailIntegration Broker for content“Portals” for self-service (buyers/Requesters)

Settlement Invoices: EDI/Flat-FilePayments: Check/P-Card

Invoices: EDI/Flat-FilePayments: Check/P-Card

Invoices: EDI/Flat-File/PO FlipPayments: Check/Vendor Card

Invoices: EDI/Flat-File/PO FlipPayments: Check/3rd-Party Settlement

Pros Electronic transmission of transactions (orders, POAs, ASN, invoices, and more)

Contract content available, limited support required to manage non-production content

Supplier & requester self-service, outsourced content mgt, true auto-sourcing, product configuration

Outsource content mgt, improved content mgt tools, reduced content/transaction/supplier support costs, higher requester satisfaction, increased content control, increased spend under mgt, and creation of significant settlement revenue streams

Cons Costly setup, limited adoption, costly support, limited functionality

No integration, double sourcing as ad hoc reqs get to buyers, limited adoption

Requisition/search process confusing, less cat control , internal content unruly, not easily associated w contract id and limiting mass adoption

Production data stored externally, duplication of internal production content

MaturityIn Decline

(replaced via XML)

Obsolete(became Direct Connect,

marketplace, or died)

In Decline(value constrained by high cat

mgt/transaction costs, no revenue; highest install, fewest net new)

Mature – Best Practice(tools maturing, but stable; value

impactful, highest net new; installs move by industry, not broad-based)

29


30

eProcurement Model Maturity AssessmentIn Development Mature Best Practice In Decline Obsolete

EDI Model

Internet Model

Direct Connect Model

Third-Party Model

Multi-Marketplace Model **

** Although one large US health care firm is planning for a multi-marketplace model, none are in existence at this point. While it is being referenced, no data, implementations, or success stories are available at this time of this report. In fact, at least one was denied (State of Georgia) due to technology limitations, overall expense, and lack of marketplace participants. In short, it is too expensive and will not be supported by the current marketplaces (see the Appendix for more on Marketplace Model).

31


32

Appendix – Multiple-Marketplace Model The Multiple-Marketplace Model• Creating customized requisition pages within PS tools to aggregate content

across internal, punch-out, and multiple marketplace catalogs• Option 1 – cache external content in PeopleSoft and customized requisition

pages to search, display, and link to these external content stores• Option 2 – customize PeopleSoft requisition pages to make real time calls out

to external content stores, wait while they compile the results, display the results as they are returned, and then link out to the remote catalogs in order to complete the purchase

• NOTE both options require marketplaces and punch-outs to agree to development and being accessed “under-the-covers”; this was designed, but was abandoned due to inability to even prototype - technology limitations and lack of marketplace participants

Period Description (NA)• None – this would be bleeding edge if it even worked

Major Players• None – too risky, too expensive, doesn’t add relative value beyond current

Third-Party Model.

33

Appendix - Multi-Marketplaces Functionality Assmnt Functionality Assessment• This model would provide NO additional functionality that could not be

obtained via a best of breed marketplace.• This model would provide NO additional content that could not be enabled via

a best of breed marketplace. • NOTE: although different marketplaces do specialize in different types of

content, all content connections use the same technology. It is much easier to deploy best of breed marketplace and enable new content, than to integrate with multiple marketplaces.

• NOTE2: marketplace vendors such as GHX, Ariba, Ketera, and Emptoris are not best of breed. Their content data structures, content management tools, and search functionality are far less appealing then best of breed SaaS vendors such as SciQuest.

34

Appendix - Multiple-Marketplaces Pros/Cons Advantages of Multiple Marketplaces Vs Prior Model• None. While there are potentially more “out of the box” enablements by

using another marketplace, the cost and complexity would delay them for years. They would ultimately be scrapped as management was replaced. Far easier, cheaper, and faster to have one best of breed marketplace enable the connections on its own – that is what you pay them for.

Disadvantages of Third-Party Model• Bleeding edge technology. Sounds smart, but has never been successfully

built before – has been attempted, but was discontinued for multiple reasons• Requires massive customization to the PS req pages (similar customizations

took 3-6 months due to the requisition page-let); upgrade…time to re-design everything; marketplaces changes/upgrades, more re-designs (SaaS vendors add functionality every three months or so)

• Marketplaces unlikely to cooperate – they want eyes on their application; hope to convert firms from legacy apps to their SaaS down the road

• IF marketplace vendors were to change their application (big “IF”), the process would be slow

• Item search likely to be VERY slow (must await results form all marketplaces)

35

Multiple-Marketplaces – eProcurement Cons Cont. Disadvantages of Multiple-Marketplaces Model• Requester confusion will be massive and limit adoption; content now lives

internally, remotely at “X” number of punch-outs and remotely at “X” number of marketplaces and NO ability to cross-compare?

• Item search to be incomplete; marketplace results do not include punch-outs, when does requester even know that all sites have been searched?

• 20+ search UIs (marketplaces, punch-outs, PS internal), multiple content mgt processes, multiple tool sets, data structures, search rules, etc

• Limited ability to leverage managed services• More islands of content (punch-outs, marketplaces); one of the issues

marketplaces are designed to eliminate• Forms (very helpful for highly dynamic content), proxy cats, self-managed

cats, etc. would be difficult to deploy • Potentially limited ability to tie requested items back to their contracts (easily

accomplishable if one single best of breed marketplace was deployed).

e procurement space maturity assessment srm+ ver

Technology