BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
The subject matter which is regarded as the invention is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed in the claims at the conclusion of the specification. The foregoing and other objects, features, and advantages of the invention are apparent from the following detailed description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings in which:
FIG. 1 is a schematic drawing of a computer system usable with the present invention;
FIGS. 2A and 2B, assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 2, forms a flow diagram of the process of the present invention;
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of the savings estimation model components of the process illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B;
FIG. 4 is a presentation of the general requirements of the flow process of FIGS. 2A and 2B;
FIG. 5 is a illustration of the electronic link between an electronic questionnaire and an electronic spreadsheet program to be run in the computer system of FIG. 1;
FIG. 6 is a presentation of the category specific requirements of the collection of detailed information of the process of FIG. 3;
FIG. 7 is a presentation of the maturity assessment frame of the process of FIG. 3;
FIG. 8 illustrates the score values used in the maturity measurements of the process of FIG. 3;
FIG. 9 is an illustration of one embodiment of the section definitions whose maturity is measured;
FIG. 10 is as illustration of one embodiment of the functions of organizational planning and deployment section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 11 is an illustration of one embodiment of the functions of the spend and savings management section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 12 is an illustration of one embodiment of the functions of the procurement and sourcing strategy section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 13 is an illustration of one embodiment of the functions of the supply management leadership section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 14 is an illustration of one embodiment of the functions of the contract and supplier management section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 15 is an illustration of one embodiment of the functions of the procurement execution section of FIG. 9;
FIG. 16 is an illustration of the sourcing maturity indicators used to evaluate the functions of FIGS. 10-15;
FIGS. 17-21 gives one embodiment of the specific criteria used to assign the maturity stage to the five functions of the organizational planning and deployment section shown in FIG. 10;
FIG. 22 is an illustration of the determination of the weighted score of the sections of FIG. 9;
FIG. 23 is a presentation illustrating the standard savings ranges by category of FIG. 3.
FIG. 24 is a presentation illustrating the savings calculation model of FIG. 3;
FIGS. 25A, 25B, and 25C, assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 25, is a listing of input tab of one embodiment of a spreadsheet of the process of FIG. 3;
FIGS. 26A and 26B, assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 26, illustrates an example of a scenario maturity profile used in the process of FIG. 3;
FIG. 27 and 28 illustrates one embodiment of the output tab of the spreadsheet of the process of FIG. 3;
FIGS. 29A and 29B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 29 is an illustration of a savings summary by contract year for a scenario for contract year of one embodiment of the spreadsheet of the process of FIG. 3;
FIGS. 30A and 30B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 30 is an illustration of a savings summary by wave (over total contract duration) of one embodiment of the spreadsheet of the process of FIG. 3; and
FIGS. 31A and 31B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 31 is an illustration of a savings summary by wave vs. baseline spend of one embodiment of the spreadsheet of the process of FIG. 3.
The detailed description explains the preferred embodiments of the invention, together with advantages and features, by way of example with reference to the drawings.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
FIG. 1 is a schematic drawing of a computer system 50 having a computer 51, a monitor 52, and an input device 53 such as a keyboard or a diskette or compact disk (CD) reader. The computer system also includes a memory 54 in which is stored one or more application programs 55 for execution by the computer 51. As will be explained later, the application program 55 may be an electronic questionnaire or a spreadsheet program such as Excel available from Microsoft Corp. The computer system 50 may also include peripheral devices such as printers, disk drive devices, etc. The computer 51 may be a single computer or a network of printers, disk drive devices, etc. The computer 51 may be a single computer or a network of computers, as is well known in the art, and will not be explained further.
FIGS. 2A and 2B, assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 2, form a flow diagram of the process 60 of the present invention. At 61, a validated opportunity is recognized, and the proper business unit is notified at 62. In FIGS. 2A and 2B, everything above the line 65 is preferable performed by the Business Transformation Office (BTO) or the Business Consulting Service (BCS). Below the line 65 and above the line 66 is preferable performed by Procurement Services, and everything below the line 66 is preferably performed by Sourcing Councils. At 67, the senior procurement manager is engaged by the business unit, who makes a rapid scan or requests a pricing analysis at 68. At 69, an initial maturity assessment is made to determine the maturity, to be explained, of each function involved in the procurement process. At 70, an initial savings assessment standard model is established, and category exceptions are checked at 71. At 72, the senior procurement manager also makes the sourcing project management office aware of the analysis being conducted. If there are category exceptions identified at 71, they are assessed by the appropriate council at 73 and reviewed by management at 74. All during this process, the BTO/BCS supports client interaction at 75. If there are no category exceptions, the BTO/BCS presents an initial proposal at 77. Procurements services then conducts client visits and workshops at 78 to further the aims set out in the initial proposal. These visits and workshops include council support and involvement at 79. At 80, the final maturity stages are determined and the savings estimates are established. Management review is conducted at 81, and the final proposal is made at 82.
FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of the savings estimation model components. At 90, the initial step identifies the procurement category in scope for the client. Typically, this comes in the form of a historical annual spend amount which the client expended to procure each category in the previous year. For example: $325M for Technical Services spending and $42M for Travel related expenditures. Preferably, this spend is provided at a country (i.e. France) or geography level (Asia pacific) in a subcategory (i.e. Hotel spending as a subset of Travel). When the spend data has been obtained and validated with the client, this spend data is mapped into defined Indirect Procurement Categories. This annual spend detail is used as an input to the savings model 92.
The next step in the model 92 is to provide the client with rapid scan questionnaires at 95 and category specific questionnaires at 96. These questionnaires provide insight into the current business process applied for these Indirect Procurement Categories. These provide a vehicle for Client subject matter experts to connect with Procurement Services subject matter experts for each category. This also allows these subject matter experts to validate spending levels determine at 90, maturity levels (to be discussed) and potential savings opportunities. Rapid Scan questionnaires are completed at 95 and more detailed Category Specific questionnaires are completed at 96 for each Indirect Sourcing sub-category supported in the savings model 92.
At the maturity assessment framework step 97, a maturity assessment is established to evaluate the maturity level of the client's indirect procurement processes. A maturity assessment scale of 1-5 (to be explained) is used. Areas or sections for maturity evaluation are: 1.0 Organization Planning and Deployment; 2.0 Spend and Savings Management; 3.0 Procurement and Sourcing Strategy; 4.0 Supply Management Leadership; 5.0 Contract and Supplier Management; and 6.0 Procurement Execution. These sections will be explained.
At 98, the standard resource calculation by category step is performed. The savings model 92 defines addressable spend by category (commodity). The category is defined as groupings of sourcing activities with similar characteristics. A Full Time Equivalent (FTE) estimator applies addressable spend to pre-defined metrics. The FTE estimator calculates resources required for Client delivery.
At 99, the standard savings ranges by category step are performed. The standard savings (also known as “seeds”) represent a savings percentage by category for an average maturity level. The percentages are derived by gathering sourcing savings from a number of sources, including: standardized internal savings, BCS Savings taxonomy, existing BTO account target/actual savings, previously identified standard savings. The standard savings are revised every six months as at 98 to improve their accuracy and reliability. The percentages so derived are not provided in a separate file, but included in the Savings Calculation Model (to be discussed): the user should not act on these standard ranges.
After these steps are performed, the results are provided to the savings calculation model 100, which, with the maturity assessment 101, is used to complete a client savings model 102. After completion of data gathering from the customer in the savings model 92 and finalization of the Maturity Assessment 101, all available data must be entered into the “Input” tab of the Savings Calculation Model.
The fields of one embodiment are:
- Spend: this comes from the spend in scope step 90 (spend analysis).
- % addressable spend: the % of addressable spend is either indicated by the client, but most often must be evaluated by the engagement team on the basis of the Rapid Scan questionnaires of 95.
- Tactical spend % by year: the evaluation ofthe split between spend that will be strategically and tactically sourced is based on spend analysis or in absence of data from the clients on standard profiles.
- Wave number: The assignment of a spend category to a wave is done on the basis of several factors and in particular account savings yield/ease of implementation of each category of spend.
- Wave start: The beginning of each wave of categories is defined in accordance to the overall solution and resource plan and has not a fixed schedule, although normally each wave starts 12 months later then the previous one.
- Wave delay: This input is required to calculate the delay of savings on the start of the sourcing activity, due the time required to bring to conclusion one sourcing cycle. It is a default value of 6 months that can be amended based on specific information on the client's sourcing environment.
- Initial Maturity: The initial Maturity is input on the basis of the results of the Maturity assessment frame 97, performed either at client level or a category level.
- Compliance %: The compliance % is a value that needs to be estimated for the entire duration of the contract on the basis of Rapid Scan and additional information from the client. Compliance represent an estimate of the client ability to implement standardized sourcing recommendations and thus to actually achieve the estimated savings.
In one embodiment, once this data are entered, the user estimates a maximum of three scenarios which differs in the maturity profile over the contractual duration. In fact the model will return different savings estimates depending not only on the initial maturity but also on the basis of the above inputs, the model will calculate savings projections over a period of five years.
The model provides output for each of the three scenarios, and calculates yearly savings according to the input wave structure; different views of the savings (by category, council etc.) are calculated, inclusive of monetary and % savings amounts. Calculations are based on algorithms derived from council savings percentages (cost take out and General Procurement Competitive Advantage), and contract time periods.
In order to ensure increased accuracy of the model, a “continuous” validation and update process may be performed as shown at 103 and 104. At desired intervals the standard savings and the model outputs may be validated on the basis of actual performance of standardized procurement internally and for BTO clients.
The core algorithm is also validated against the data above. Major updates can include enhancement to the output formats and additional functionality required by the users.
FIG. 4 is a presentation 110 of the general requirements of the flow process. As noted, two formats are presented. Questionnaires are used to provide input data, and a spreadsheet format is used to process the data and provide output. In one embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the questionnaire is in electronic form 112 which is linked to a spreadsheet 113 such that entering data into the questionnaire is automatically entered into the proper input tab in the spreadsheet 113.
FIG. 6 a presentation 115 of the category specific requirements. Multiple questionnaires such as 112 provide input for category data as in 96. FIG. 7 is a presentation 116 of the maturity assessment frame criteria of 97. The maturity assessment frame includes a series of maturity factors and scoring guidelines 117, which scores are weighted, as will be discussed. As shown in FIG. 8, the scoring values arc “1” for a rating of innocence, “2” for awareness, “3” for understanding, “4” for competency, and “5” for excellence. The definitions for the stages are given in FIG. 16. FIG. 9 includes a listing of the sections 118 of a procurement organization which are scored, and the weighting factor 119 used with each section, which will be explained. Herein, 6 sections are used, and are exemplary only. It will be understood that more or less sections may be used as desired, and may further be used in connection with any organization and its functions which are to be evaluated.
FIGS. 10-15 are illustrations of one embodiment of the sections of FIG. 9. Each section is divided into functions which are separately scored. For instance, 1.0 organizational planning and deployment shown in FIG. 10 is divided into five functions shown at 121, wherein each function is scored in the score column 122. The scores are exemplary only. In one embodiment, FIGS. 10-15 are as shown in the questionnaire. FIG. 16 shows the sourcing maturity indicators 124 with the respective maturity state 125 used to score the functions of the sections, as shown in FIGS. 10-15.
Each of the functions of FIGS. 10-15 are evaluated by an evaluator familiar with the function, and guidelines arc established to determine the maturity stages “1” through “5”. Only functions 1.1-1.5 are shown, but is will be understood that similar guidelines are established for all of the functions of the sections 118 of FIG. 9.
As shown in FIG. 22, all of the scores for all of the functions for each section are totaled, and then averaged to give an average score for that section. The average score is then multiplied by the weight to give a weighted score which is used in the savings calculations. For instance, the scores for section 1.0 are 11 (see FIG. 10, 2+3+1+2+3=11). The score is then averaged ( 11/6=2.2). The average score is then multiplied by the weight to give the weighted score (2.2×0.20=0.44). The weighted score is used to identify spend categories that have greater opportunity for achieving savings.
In FIG. 23, the criteria of the standard savings (seeds) of 99 are shown. The format is two spreadsheets for savings range for initial submission and savings percent for the savings model 102. FIG. 24 shows the criteria of the savings calculation model of 100. In one embodiment, the savings calculation model 100 is performed in a spreadsheet which includes an input tab which receives input data from the questionnaires of 95 and 96.
FIGS. 25A, 25B, and 25C, assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 25, is an illustration of partial input tab of the spreadsheet of the savings calculation model 100. FIGS. 26A and 26B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 26, illustrates an example of a partial scenario maturity profile. This profile is used to study the savings projected to be realized by improving the maturity level from, for instance, 2 to a maturity level of 3 in rounds 1-3, and a maturity level of 4 in round 4. The initial maturity score is shown at 130. The maturity levels of each of the rounds are shown at 132, 134, 136, and 138, respectively. As previously mentioned, savings are estimated as shown at 131 for the typical savings for the initial value, and the savings in percent for each of the rounds as shown at 133, 135, 137, and 139, respectively. These % savings are discussed in connection with seeds in FIG. 23.
FIG. 27 is an illustration of a partial output tab showing the savings at 100% compliance. FIG. 28 is an illustration of a partial output tab showing the savings at estimated compliance. FIGS. 29A and 29B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 29 is an illustration of a savings summary of contract year for a scenario. FIGS. 30A and 30B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 30 is an illustration of a savings summary by wave (over total contract duration). FIGS. 31A and 31B assembled as shown in the map of FIG. 31 is an illustration of a savings summary by wave vs. baseline spend.
The capabilities of the present invention can be implemented in software, firmware, hardware or some combination thereof.
As one example, one or more aspects of the present invention can be included in an article of manufacture (e.g., one or more computer program products) having, for instance, computer usable media. The media has embodied therein, for instance, computer readable program code means for providing and facilitating the capabilities of the present invention. The article of manufacture can be included as a part of a computer system or sold separately.
Additionally, at least one program storage device readable by a machine, tangibly embodying at least one program of instructions executable by the machine to perform the capabilities of the present invention can be provided.
The flow diagrams depicted herein are just examples. There may be many variations to these diagrams or the steps (or operations) described therein without departing from the spirit of the invention. For instance, the steps may be performed in a differing order, or steps may be added, deleted or modified. All of these variations are considered a part of the claimed invention.
While the preferred embodiment to the invention has been described, it will be understood that those skilled in the art, both now and in the future, may make various improvements and enhancements which fall within the scope of the claims which follow. These claims should be construed to maintain the proper protection for the invention first described.
Patent Application
20080082458
