Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

Pulse of Procurement 2014
Page 2 | 2014 Zycus Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION
Dear Colleague,
Zycus is pleased to present its Pulse of Procurement 2014 report on the state of procurement performance and technology. The research
is part of an ongoing Zycus initiative to comprehend enterprise procurement challenges and best practices around the globe.
Having begun this research series back in 2011, we are now able to look beyond current snapshots into emerging trends as enterprise
strategic procurement functions continue to evolve and gain in maturity. We are greatly excited to observe that, after many years of
intense focus on xing old problems, procurement appears to be moving into a new phase characterized by innovation in which
information gets transformed into competitive business intelligence, sourcing and procurement activities become more forward-focused
and predictive and the scope of procurements performance contributions expands into many areas beyond purchase costs and process
efciency. To achieve all of this, of course, procurement needs a new level of technology enablement. It needs integrated automation
technology that:
Expands team productivity and frees talent for the kinds of creative thinking that only human minds can accomplish.
Shares information seamlessly and ensures one version of the truth.
Makes it very easy to ask new, innovative questions and nd accurate answers rapidly and from anywhere, with just a few clicks or
nger taps.
At Zycus, we are passionate about building solutions that combine seamless integration of sourcing and procurement processes, state-of-
the-art functionality and ease of use along with superior responsiveness from our teams to help customers achieve their ever-evolving
business performance objectives. We are driven by these principles and have invested heavily in building a complete suite of integrated
procurement solutions from the ground up!
We hope you nd this report useful and instructive as you map your own journey to better business performance.
Aatish Dedhia
CEO, Zycus Inc.
2014 Zycus Inc. All rights reserved. | Page 3
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................................... 4
PROCUREMENT PAIN AREAS FOR 2014 ...........................................................................................................................................................5
Enterprise procurement mandate ..........................................................................................................................................................................................6
Top procurement pain points for 2014 ..................................................................................................................................................................................7
How procurement sees business intelligence evolving in the coming ve years ....................................................................................................... 8
STATE OF PROCUREMENT (PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS) ......................................................................................................... 11
Strategic maturity .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Spend under management (SUM)......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Cost savings ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Contract compliance ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Sourcing and order cycle times ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 16
PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGY TRENDS ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
Investment and interest levels by major solution sets ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Primary platform congurations: what procurement has versus what it really wants .......................................................................................... 22
Technology adoption & use benchmarks ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Technology utilization benchmarks ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT & WISH LIST ................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Successful tactics for driving procurement technology adoption & use .................................................................................................................... 30
Sweet spot for procurement technology selection .......................................................................................................................................................... 31
ABOUT ZYCUS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Zycus Pulse of Procurement 2014 study encompasses input from more than 300
procurement executives and professionals with demographic characteristics shown on
this page.
BIG OBSERVATIONS FROM THIS YEARS STUDY
The rate at which corporations seem to be minting new enterprise strategic
procurement groups has come to a virtual standstill over the past 2-3 years. This
may signify saturation for procurement strategic transformation or simply reect a
shift in C-Suite attention away from defensive to more offensive business priorities
as economic recovery continues. Either way, CPOs who wish to continue expanding
their spheres of inuence may need to change or raise their games.
Procurement organizations continue to advance in placing additional spend under
management, obtaining compliance to preferred supply contracts and saving
money for their companies, but a majority still lingers in the lower performance
tiers for cumulative cost-savings delivery and many are still encountering barriers
in the big transition from occasional to more systematic types of performance
wins.
Investment in procurement process automation and information technology
persists with solutions such as Contract Management and Spend Analysis nearing
ubiquity. Nonetheless, procurement pros say their overall technology proles are
far from ideal, with most looking for greater integration among solutions in order
to yield higher quality, more synthesized and predictive business intelligence.
High-performing procurement organizations show notably stronger technology
adoption, use and utilization rates than lower performers (p25). Look to p30 of this
report to see how they are accomplishing this.
BY REVENUE
>$5 billion ...........................................33%
$2 bil - $5 bil .....................................29%
$500 mil to $2 bil ............................ 18%
<$500 million ...................................... 7%
Dont know/privately held ...............13%
BY GEOGRAPHY
North America ..................................75%
South America ..................................... 1%
Middle East/Asia .................................9%
Europe .................................................. 3%
Australia/New Zealand ....................12%
BY JOB TITLE
Executive/VP/CPO ........................... 10%
Director ..............................................24%
Manager/Category Mgr ................. 42%
Agent/Buyer ....................................... 17%
Other Staff ........................................... 7%
PROCUREMENT
PAIN AREAS FOR 2014
S
ince Zycus began its Pulse of Procurement research series
several years ago, the proportion of business enterprises
authorizing global procurement teams to take control of
corporate spending has not moved from seven in 10. While its
possible this represents a saturation point for procurement
strategic transformation that is, some 30% of corporate
leaders will NEVER be persuaded to invest in procurement-
powered business performance improvement it may also be a
function of shifting economic winds, with C-Suite players simply
refocusing on top- versus bottom line-boosting investments
and activities. As long as global economic recovery and growth
persist through the next several years, procurement leaders
looking to continue expanding their spheres of inuence should
probably be planning to pursue more top-line enhancing activities
such as:
Driving supplier performance improvement and supply-risk
identication and mitigation.
Identifying and cultivating top-performing suppliers
for collaborative innovation and new product & service
development.
Writing contracts creatively to share (vs. shift) risk.
Pursue most-favored or exclusive customer status with
suppliers identied as critical to market position and/or
capable of conferring competitive advantage.
Yes : 71%
No: 21%
N/A: 8%
Could the C-Suite be losing interest in procurement-led
business performance improvement?
Does procurement have a mandate to
manage corporate spending?
I
nvestment in procurement technology continues to rise,
but, when Zycus asks procurement professionals to cite
their biggest pain points for 2014, top vote getters are
internal and external information quality.
At rst read, one might surmise that procurement
technology is failing to deliver the quality of information
procurement needs. On the contrary, though, ndings
from other parts of the study suggest it is less about
technology failing to deliver, more about enterprise
strategic procurement teams dramatically raising and
changing their standards for information (see page 8).
While procurement continues to wrestle with longstanding
challenges of performance measurement and driving
corporate cultural change toward more disciplined,
competitive and fact-driven spending behaviors,
there also appears to be substantial focus emerging
on obtaining greater adoption, use & utilization of
procurement technology. This trend is investigated in
greater detail beginning on page 24 of this report.
Internal info quality / 47%
External info quality / 37%
Performance measurement & management
systems / 35%
Corporate organization, governance
& culture / 33%
Technology adoption & use / 31%
Technology utilization / 27%
Contract compliance / 27%
Talent/skills / 24%
Technology stack/infrastructure / 23%
Procurement process compliance / 15%
Procurement hungers for better quality biz intelligence
Big Data fever strikes procurement function
Forward-
looking &
predictive
Global
in scope
Integrated
w/external
intelligence
&
Capable
of being
combined for
reporting
Credible
& valid
&
Timely &
up-to-date
Granular/
detailed
57%
Integrated
across
processes
Mobile
Protected/
secure
41%
35%
34%
29%
24%
22%
19%
8%
Capable of
being
shared w/
other
enterprises
T
wo decades ago, few Chief Procurement Ofcers could do more than offer vague estimates of total corporate spending. They had
virtually zero insight into spending at category or supplier levels and no useful means for evaluating procurement performance in
context of external or competitive market information. But, while huge strides have been made in all these areas, rather than satisfying
CPOs and their teams, the improvements seem to have awakened a hunger for more, bigger, faster, better business intelligence. Call it Big
Data for procurement. Here is how procurement pros vote in 2014 when asked how they might complete the following sentence (multiple
responses allowed): In the coming ve years, our procurement information needs to become more....?
Integrated and predictive
are huge while mobile and
secure are notably low on
procurement professionals
priority list for the future of
business intelligence.
Simplicity in obtaining information from
systems, report generation and predictive
analysis.
If you could ask for one innovation to make you more
effective in your job, what would it be?
STATE OF PROCUREMENT
(PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS)
A
sked to self rate for strategic procurement maturity, the Pulse of Procurement 2014 study nds very little has changed in two years,
with the top two categories for maturity gaining only a single point between 2012 and 2014. And, while the measure is relatively
imprecise, it reveals persistent frustration among procurement pros in crossing the great divide between sporadic performance wins and
more systematic, sustainable and diverse sorts of business-value contributions by procurement. There are dozens of potential variables
holding procurement back; a look into differentiators across a series of procurement KPIs suggests that prominent factors include:
Essential procurement technology congurations.
Weak adoption & inconsistent use of available procurement technology, especially among
distributed procurement personnel, spend and other key
stakeholders.
Starting/
delivering
early wins
Gaining
momentum
Extending
inuence
Systematically
delivering
wins
Global
best-in-
class
14%
24%
25%
32%
5%
Leap into top maturity tier continues to elude many
procurement teams
Top 2 tiers
gain only 1-pt
from 2012
study
{
W
hile two-thirds of procurement pros remain reluctant to describe their organizations as tops for maturity, they are continuing
to expand inuence, with the percentage of companies placing themselves into the top two performance tiers for spend under
management (SUM) rising six points between 2012 and 2014. This advancement reects continued
inroads by procurement into some of the more complex indirect and services spend categories,
including contingent labor and consulting; marketing, advertising and communications; legal,
nancial services and so forth. Two key observations:
Persistently low SUM companies are more than 3X more likely than high SUM companies to
be relying primarily on homegrown procurement information technology.
Companies in the top echelon for procurement SUM show substantially higher
adoption & use of procurement technology among both decentralized
procurement personnel and spend stakeholders.
<20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80%+
10%
14%
24%
39%
13%
Top tier for spend under management (SUM) benchmark gains
six points in two years
{
More than half
now occupy the
top two SUM
performance
tiers
T
he upper echelon for cost savings performance also gained six points between 2012 and 2014, but the largest percentage of
procurement organizations still falls into low mid- and low performance tiers, having documented cumulative cost savings (by their
own measures) at something less than 10% of total corporate spending. Two procurement technology-related observations:
More than half (55%) of low savers use primarily homegrown procurement information technology while 27% rely mainly on
ERP technology compared to 18% who have invested in
professionally developed, dedicated procurement solutions.
By contrast, some 43% of companies in the highest cost
savings echelon use dedicated procurement technology
applications with some 80% in that group using
integrated procurement technology suites (versus
mixing solutions from multiple providers).
<5% 5-10% 11-20% 21-30% 30%+
10%
34%
29%
16%
11%
High savers club grows six points from 2012 but nearly half still
linger below the 10% threshold for cost savings
A few progress,
but many more
continue to
struggle with
low savings
delivery
{
D
espite being ranked as a top-three pain point by one in three procurement pros this year, the weighted average estimate for contract
compliance has risen 14 points since 2011 (note, 2011 is the last time Zycus benchmarked this metric; there is no comparable gure for
2012). What is more, the percentage of procurement pros placing their companies into one of the top two tiers for contract compliance
jumped 11 points over the same time span. Once again, there are noteworthy
distinctions in terms of procurement technology with:
Low compliance companies being 4X more likely than high compliance
companies to be using mostly homegrown solutions.
High compliance companies reporting procurement technology
adoption & use among spend stakeholders at a weighted average of
50% compared to just 22% among low compliance companies.
<20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80%+
10%
12%
34%
25%
19%
Go procurement! Contract compliance gains 14 points on
average between 2011 and 2014
{
Weighted avg:
55% in 2014 vs.
41% in 2011
T
his year, Zycus has added new benchmark
KPIs for sourcing and order cycle times to
the study. Weighted averages are shown in the
table on this page while detailed distributions
among the study population are shown in
charts on page 17.
It was hypothesized that companies using
e-Sourcing and/or Contract Management
solutions would display shorter sourcing
cycle times. This proves true, although
more so for simpler spending categories.
Companies using either e-Sourcing or
Contract Management solutions report
sourcing cycle times that are, on average,
two weeks shorter for simple categories, one week shorter for complex and relatively the same for services categories. Of note is
that this simple testing does not account for how companies actually apply their solutions (that is, they may or may not be using them
frequently for all types of spend categories), so these results, while suggestive, should be interpreted with some caution. Nor does the
testing account for possible time shifting within strategic sourcing processes. For example, with sophisticated bid analytics capabilities
embedded in e-Sourcing solutions, companies are quite likely to be increasing the time they spend on analysis especially in complex
categories and achieving improved outcomes in terms of costs and other favorable contract terms.
It was also hypothesized that companies using procure-to-pay (P2P) solutions would display shorter order cycle times compared
to companies not using procurement process automation solutions. For simple categories, companies with P2P in place show
weighted average order cycle times roughly half as long as companies not using P2P (three versus six days on average). For complex
categories, the improvement is less dramatic (13 versus 16 days in total). For services, the improvement is 11 versus 13 days. Again,
though, these simple tabulations account only for the presence of P2P solutions and not for sophistication of solution deployment.
Pulse 2014 intros new benchmarks for sourcing
and order cycle times
Simple Complex Services
Weighted
avg sourcing
cycle time (in
weeks)
6.3 13.5 10.7
Weighted avg
order cycle
time (in days)
4.7 14.5 11.6
0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24
37%
21%
18%
12%
4%
24+
8%
0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24
2%
17%
20%
19%
17%
24+
25%
0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24
5%
25%
27%
15%
9%
24+
19%
0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+
41%
38%
15%
4%
2%
0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+
5%
24%
30%
22%
19%
0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+
10%
36%
23%
18%
13%
SOURCING CYCLE TIMES (IN WEEKS)
ORDER CYCLE TIMES (IN DAYS)
PROCUREMENT
TECHNOLOGY TRENDS
L
ooking at investment interest by major procurement technology category,
e-Sourcing shows the largest increase from 2012 with the percentage already
using the technology or planning to invest gaining 11 points. Somewhat smaller, yet
still notable increases are seen for both Contract Management and Spend Analysis
(+7pts each), with investment interest in the remaining three categories tested
procure-to-pay (P2P), supplier performance and information management (SM)
and procurement process and performance management (PM) all being relatively
at compared with 2012. With that said, both Spend Analysis and Contract
Management appear to be approaching ubiquity with only one in 10 companies
expressing zero interest in investing. Meantime, Procurement Management,
which encompasses cost savings documentation, validation and alignment with
corporate nancial metrics as well as project and process management for strategic
sourcing and other initiatives, leads for overall investment interest in 2014 with
some 33% of procurement professionals expecting their organizations to invest
soon in these types of solutions. Supplier Management, which encompasses
supplier performance measurement, scorecarding and reporting as well as supplier
information management takes a close second place with 32% overall saying they
expect to see near-term investments in this area.
Testing for presence of various procurement technology solutions by organizational
maturity levels nds Spend Analysis to be, very often, the rst stop on the
procurement technology road map. Mid-maturity investments typically include P2P
and Contract Management, while investments in e-Sourcing, Supplier Management
and Procurement Management typically fall later in the lifecycles of evolving
strategic enterprise procurement functions.
As in prior Pulse of Procurement studies, presence of various procurement
technology solutions was tested against performance tiers for cost savings, spend
under management (SUM) and contract compliance. The most notable observations
e-Sourcing shows biggest two-year gain in procurement
technology investment interest
Solution
Already
have
Will
invest
soon
No
plans to
invest
Where
investment
typically falls in
maturity cycle...
Spend
Analysis
69% 22% 9% Early
Contract
Management
64% 25% 11% Mid
e-Sourcing 51% 25% 24% Late
P2P 53% 26% 21% Mid
Supplier
Management
46% 32% 22% Late
Procurement
Management
45% 33% 22% Late
in this years study:
Companies falling into the top two
performance tiers for cost savings are
2.5X more likely to be using e-Sourcing
than those falling into the lowest
savings tiers. They are 1.5X more likely
than low savers to be using Contract
Management and 2.3X more likely to
be using P2P solutions.
High compliance companies are 2X
more likely than low compliance
companies to be using P2P.
High SUM companies are 1.6X more
likely than low SUM to be using P2P.
Of note is that these observations are
based solely on coincidence of solutions
versus performance tiers and do not
represent statistical evidence of causality.
What is more, as procurement technology
solutions have continued to achieve greater
sophistication, market acceptance and
saturation, what used to be very large
tech gaps between high, mid- and low-
level performers appear to be closing with
many companies now investing in advanced
procurement solutions much earlier in their
transformation lifecycles than in the past.
32%
18%
17%
1%
32%
Mostly
homegrown
ERP
modules
Procurement
soln mix
Procurement
suite
N/A
W
ith a vision of the future that includes integrated,
predictive, synthesized and globally-scoped business
intelligence, it is hardly surprising that procurement pros are
apparently dissatised with their current overall technology
proles. Roughly one third describe their current congurations
as mostly homegrown, which includes solutions created in
electronic spreadsheets and desktop database applications as
well as custom solutions developed by in-house IT personnel.
Another one third say they rely mainly on ERP modules while
a slightly larger group has invested in solutions developed
professionally and built from the ground up for procurement
in particular (versus being adapted from primarily nance,
accounting, manufacturing or other business perspectives).
This latter group is split between companies mixing discrete
procurement solutions from multiple providers and those
investing in integrated suites designed to move information
seamlessly and multilaterally among various steps in source-to-
settle processes and to provide sophisticated dashboard types of
reporting and on-demand information retrieval at any point in a
strategic sourcing or procurement process.
While current congurations often deviate substantially from
what procurement pros see as their ideal technology setups, it
does appear that many have technology road maps in place that
will be at least moving them in the direction they want to go.
Huge gap identied between the technology procurement
typically has and what it really wants
What procurement has...
5%
10%
60%
7%
18%
Mostly
homegrown
ERP
modules
Procurement
soln mix
Procurement
suite
N/A
7%
30%
33%
7%
23%
Mostly
homegrown
ERP
modules
Procurement
soln mix
Procurement
suite
N/A
32%
18%
17%
1%
32%
Mostly
homegrown
ERP
modules
Procurement
soln mix
Procurement
suite
N/A
vs. what it expects to get vs. what it wants
I
ts one thing to invest in and deploy procurement technology, quite another to convert large, complex corporate organizations to both
routine and advanced use of solutions available. A special focus area for Zycus Pulse of Procurement 2014 was to understand:
How extensively procurement technology is being
adopted & used by various corporate constituencies.
How much of an impact technology adoption &
use might be having on procurements ability
to deliver on key performance indicators.
What factors might be inuencing technology
adoption & use either positively or negatively.
Weighted average baselines for technology
adoption & use are shown in the chart on this
page. As might be expected, adoption & use
declines the further away from enterprise
procurement one looks, rst to distributed/
non-enterprise procurement personnel and
then to spend or other corporate stakeholders
who get involved to varying degrees in procure-
to-pay, source-to-settle, supplier onboarding
and performance evaluation, documentation of
procurement cost savings and other procurement-
related business processes.
As the table on the next page reveals, there
appear to be clear relationships between average
procurement technology adoption & use rates
High performers in procurement show stronger technology
adoption & use across the board
60%
48%
38%
Enterprise
procurement
Distributed
procurement
Stakeholders
KPI Constituency
Low
Tier 1
Mid
Tiers 2 & 3
High
Tiers 4 & 5
Cost savings
Enterprise
procurement
54% 60% 65%
Distributed
procurement
55% 47% 53%
Stakeholders 24% 39% 46%
SUM
Enterprise
procurement
52% 54% 68%
Distributed
procurement
36% 43% 54%
Compliance
Enterprise
procurement
45% 61% 66%
Distributed
procurement
31% 49% 53%
and performance tiers achieved, especially
where distributed procurement personnel and
stakeholders are concerned. So, for example,
High performers on the cost-savings
metric report stakeholder adoption & use
rates that are nearly two times higher, on
average, than their counterparts in low
savings companies.
High performers on the spend under
management (SUM) metric are 16 points
higher on enterprise procurement adoption
& use, 18 points higher on distributed
procurement and 26 points higher for the
stakeholder constituency.
For contract compliance, the gaps are
similar, ranging from 21-22 percentage
points cross all three of the user
constituencies tested in the study.
While, again, the study does not attempt
to prove causality (i.e., that achieving high
technology adoption & use drives performance
directly), the consistency of the relationships
shown is difcult to ignore.
T
wo other measures looked at in this years study include procurement technology utilization the estimated percentage of total
solution functionality routinely employed by targeted end users and also procurement professionals personal assessments of the
current utility of available procurement technology in helping them perform their jobs. First, the good news: Procurements weighted
average tech utilization rate has increased 12 points from 37% in 2011 (the last
time the question was posed) to 49% in 2014. The bad news: At less than 50%
utilization overall, either advanced procurement technology is not sufciently
easy to learn and use or companies are paying for bells and whistles they
neither value nor have the capability to exploit.
Of note is that this result dovetails quite closely with what Zycus has
been experiencing in the market with many organizations looking to
convert away from overly complex procurement technology
implementations that have been poorly adopted.
Technology utilization gains 12 points in three years
<20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 80%+
11%
20%
34%
31%
4%
Procurement
tech skills show
evidence of
advancement
{
Primary
technology
conguration
Weighted avg tech
utility ratings
(0-7 scale)
Avg. tech
utilization rates
by primary
conguration
Baseline (total study
population)
4.1 49%
Procurement
suite
5.3 64%
ERP 4.0 51%
Procurement
solution mix
4.0 52%
Mostly
homegrown
3.6 41%
P
rocurement professionals tech-utility ratings
underscore the story being told on pages 22-
23 of this report, which shows a strong preference
for procurement technology that is organically and
professionally engineered for procurement and also
designed to move information seamlessly across and
among multiple stages in complex source-to-settle,
supplier relationship and procurement management
processes. As the table shows:
Companies already using integrated procurement
technology suites achieve tech utilization rates
that are well above the baseline average.
Procurement professionals working in
companies that operate with suite setups rate
the usefulness of their technology much higher
than procurement pros working with primarily
homegrown, solution mix or ERP congurations.
...meeting some of our objectives, but [we are] a long way [from]
technology that fully supports our processes.
...progressing, but we have a long way to go.
...strong on spend control, weak on analytics quality and compliance.
Our current procurement technology is...
[Our] procurement professionals spend most of their time
building spreadsheets to get useful data out of our tools.
TECHNOLOGY IMPACT
& WISH LIST
Top tactics for driving technology adoption & use
I
f procurement technology adoption & use supports procurement performance improvement, what are some of the best ways to promote
it? The study asked participants to cite their most successful tactics for promoting procurement technology adoption & use. Isolating just
companies reporting high adoption & use rates for various constituencies yields the following:
Achieving highest
adoption and use
rates among...
Number 1 tactic Number 2 tactic Number 3 tactic Number 4 tactic
Enterprise
procurement
personnel
Build and present
strong business
case/60%
Choose easy/intuitive
solutions/55%
Choose solutions
with strong workow
capabilities/48%
Monitor and report
usage/45%
Distributed
procurement
personnel
Build and present
strong business
case/59%
solutions/48%
Monitor and report
usage/44%
Conduct extensive
training/41%
Spend
stakeholders
Build and present
strong business case
/52%
solutions/48%
Monitor/report
usage/41%
Strong workow/41%
Use policies/41%
Conduct extensive
training/37%
Across-the-board
Build and present
strong business
case/57%
Choose solutions
with strong workow
capabilities/48%
Monitor and report
usage/48%
solutions/45%
Sweet spot for procurement technology selection: Easy-to-use
standard features coincide with higher adoption at all levels
Weighted average
technology adoption
& use rates among...
Low ease of use in
standard features
Baseline (total
study population)
Mid ease of use in
standard features
High ease in
standard features
Enterprise
procurement
personnel
45% 60% 62% 69%
Distributed
procurement
personnel
37% 48% 49% 53%
Spend
stakeholders
27% 38% 39% 45%
A
top tactic for companies achieving high rates of procurement technology adoption & use is to select solutions that are intuitive and
easy to learn. However, when asked to rate their current solution setups for ease of adoption & use, overall scoring is on the low side,
especially with respect to advanced feature sets. On a scale of 1 to 7, with one being difcult and seven being very easy, procurement
professionals rate standard features at an average weighted score of 3.9 (just slightly better than half way up the scale). They rate
advanced features at a score of 3.3 less than halfway up the scale. For advanced features, some 60% of procurement professionals score
their current technology at two or lower on the 1-7 ease-of-use scale.
The table below compares average adoption & use rates according to where on the ease-of-use scale procurement professionals rate
their currently deployed solutions standard features. Companies reporting high ease of use in standard features see the biggest upward
usage bump among enterprise procurement personnel 24 points higher, on average, when compared to companies rating their standard
solution features as essentially difcult to use. Among distributed procurement personnel, the adoption & use differential is +16pts; for
spend stakeholders it is +18pts when standard solution features are rated as very easy to use.
Z
ycus is dedicated to positioning procurement at the heart of business performance. With our spirit of innovation and a passion to help
procurement create even greater business advantages, we have evolved our portfolio to a complete Source-to-Pay suite of procurement
performance solutions which includes Spend Analysis, e-Sourcing, Contract Management, Supplier Management, Financial Savings
Management, and Procure-to-Pay.
Behind every Zycus solution stands an organization that possesses deep, detailed procurement expertise and a sharp focus on being
responsive to customers. We are a large 600+ and growing company with a physical presence in virtually every major region of the
globe. We see each customer as a partner in innovation and no client is too small to deserve our attention. With more than 200 solution
deployments among Global 1000 clients, we search the world continually for procurement practices proven to drive competitive business
performance. We incorporate these practices into easy-to-use solutions that give procurement
teams the power to get moving quickly from any point of departure and to continue
innovating and pushing business and procurement performance to new heights.
UNITED STATES
103 Carnegie Center, Suite 201, Princeton NJ 08540
609 799 5664
5600 N.River Road, Suite 800, Rosemont IL 60018
847 993 3180
555 Northpoint Center East, 4th Floor, Alpharetta GA 30022
678 366 5000
UNITED KINGDOM
Ofce No 104, 400 Thames Valley Park Drive, Thames Valley Park
Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1PT
+44 (0) 1189 637 493
INDIA
Plot No. GJ - 07, Seepz++, Seepz SEZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 096
+91 22 66407676

Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pulse of Procurement 2014

Page 2 | 2014 Zycus Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like