This checklist suggests that when buying something there are six separate costs that may be incurred to get physical goods to their final storage-usage point. Price (#1) is the only instantly measurable element of the 11. To get a good price requires comparative shopping and negotiating time(#2) which is expensive if purchasing department overhead is included in the hourly rate of its personnel. For every purchase, paperwork(3#) is generated. If the goods arrive at the wrong time, place or specs, then the costs of expediting and mistake-curing(#4,5) are incurred; "mistakes" should also include the downtime costs of other deprived departments. Goods are often delivered to a general receiving area instead of to the final consumption-storage point; this requires internal handling and paperwork costs(#6).
Once goods get to their final storage point, buying costs stop and holding costs start. Inventory ties up space and capital(#7,8). Then it must be watched, counted, moved, etc.-housekeeping, control costs(#9). If while waiting to be used, it is damaged, permanently borrowed, or becomes obsolete, the investment must be written off-"shrinkage"(#10). And finally, the overall, average investment in inventory must be insured and taxed (#11).
Using this checklist, first Toyota then other Japanese manufactures pioneered just-in-time purchasing to augment just-in-time manufacturing. They have taught the rest of the manufacturing world that all of the TPC elements can be lowered if not eliminated, here is how:
Start with #1; want the best price? A customer should offer all of their volume on a class of goods to one supplier, and ask for prices for differing lengths of commitment. If a supplier can count on predictable volume, then they can plan their business more efficiently to give the customer not only a volume discount, but a cooperative-economics discount too. If a customer marries one type of supplier, than the shopping time(#2) could drop nearly to zero. Wal-Mart has, for the past few years, been requesting that suppliers eliminate outside salespeople and pass the commission on in a lower price. Presumably they would be willing to pay for the cost of a salesrep on an as-needed-to-see basis, just as we choose at a gas station between full-service and self-service.
Paperwork(#3) would naturally consolidate with the elimination of duplicate suppliers, but the ultimate step would be for sole-suppliers to accept orders through EDI* and to bill back the same way. Paperless, electronic ordering and billing is becoming a standard customized service request at places like GM in order to minimize these costs.
Expediting(#4) and Mistakes(#5) should go to zero with a perfect service-providing supplier who should consider guaranteeing perfect on-time and accurate shipments in exchange for the marriage commitment. If you as the supplier did occasionally slip, consider offering appropriate penalty fees which would offset the customer's internal costs. Most suppliers boast about service, but only the real ones can offer unconditional service guarantees and setoff fees.
Internal handling costs(#6) can be eliminated if both parties can change to have direct-to-the-consumption-point delivery. If this requires you, the supplier, to make more and smaller deliveries, then your delivery costs will escalate and the price must be raised. Together find the optimal order-size that lowers internal handling and all holding costs more than the price goes up due to the extra delivery costs.
All holding costs(7-11) approach zero if a supplier delivers goods just-in-time, and there are many documented cases for this with manufacturing components.
When applying the TPC model, three common objectives from customers are:
- Looking at the short-term, fixed costs of storage space-"we own or lease the space to be freed, so we won't save there;" and the semi-fixed aspect of other costs. Remember, though, this type of purchasing is a long-term, re-structuring proposition; in the long-term all costs are variable.
- If just-in-time works well for manufacturing components, then why not for MRO items. Because the dollar amounts and space requirements for MRO items are usually small, the holding costs are not that significant. What are more important are the buying costs and the supplier's transactional and delivery costs. If the relationship is to be a long-term, win-win deal, then the supplier's delivery costs must be covered which will offset the holding-cost savings. If MRO inventory is turning over 3 times per year, by working with the right supplier turns can go to 12, but customers cannot expect to get magnitudes of 20 to 100 turns per year.
- If a cost can't be seen or hasn't been measured, it is assumed to be negligible. Items 2-11 of the TPC checklist are collectively referred to as "hidden costs;" out of site is out of mind. Those customers who measure these costs fully and honestly for the first time are always unpleasantly surprised.
THREE LEVELS OF PRODUCTIVITY?
Help the customer look for three dimensions of productivity within any new purchasing relationship:
- Efficiency - do the same activities with more automation and less waste.
- Effectiveness-on top of efficiency, look for ways to add additional value. By example, computerized inventory control systems have made reordering more time-efficient, but also effective by lowering investment in inventory while boosting fillrates and allowing different departments and divisions to source needs already in-house instead of buying duplicate items. How can your proposed system do these types of things?
- Transformational or structural productivity - this occurs when the underlying systems that organize and coordinate people and materials are redesigned to yield higher orders of economics. An article in Business Week mentioned that one of the auto companies now issues checks for goods at the receiving dock which allowed for many people in payables to be redeployed as well as an additional fast-pay discount from the suppliers. This firm added the payables step onto the end of the buying cost list in the TPC model.
If a customer were to use the TPC model to lower price and zero-out most of the other costs, a structural transformation would occur. All of the activity areas touched would be downsized freeing up people's time to pursue higher-level skills and responsibilities. Such a program would require conscious strategic and total material management process decisions. No one area can make these decisions or make a total program work; such a program would require an inter-departmental task team with top management's blessing. This is one of the biggest reasons for customers not going to pure systems contracts or for them not achieving maximum TPC savings.
Many progressive firms today are looking for bottom-up ideas and initiatives to achieve new magnitudes of productivity which by definition liquidate old job activities and create new ones. The TPC model can be a guide for re-thinking Buy-Sell agreements and for re-thinking the entire material management process. It is a powerful tool for the progressive, consultative-selling firm to use with its customers.