Application of Kraljics Purchasing Portfolio Matrix
in an Undeveloped Logistics Infrastructure
- The Staatsolie Suriname Case -
By Dennis R. Mac Donald (Suriname)
This paper was submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree at the Maastricht School of Management (MSM), Maastricht, the Netherlands, November 2006.
<This page intentionally left blank> ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was done with the support of some individuals to whom I am very grateful.
First of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, dr. Cees J . Gelderman who helped me through the study with his valuable remarks, encouragement and inspiration. Thank you Cees it was an honor to have you as my supervisor and for always being available to listen to me and to guide me to the right direction.
Secondly, special thanks go to all my MBA-intake-II fellow students, especially my thesis team members Dynaida, J uliette, Meryl and Clifton for their stimulation, valuable remarks and instructions during the several stages of my research.
Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to the research team members at Staatsolie for their substantial support to this research project. In particular, I would like to thank Peter, Robbin and Kenneth, also many thanks to my colleague, Duncan for his inspiration and useful instructions.
Thanks to Hans Lim A Po and Ollye Chin A Sen and their administrative supporting team at the FHR Lim A Po Institute for making this all possible and manageable.
I would also like to thank Iwan Kortram, Finance Director of Staatsolie, for giving me the opportunity to follow the program for my future career development.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family, Hortence, Arusha, Xavaira and Silvio for their inspiration and patience during this process.
Dennis R. Mac Donald Paramaribo, November 2006
i ABSTRACT
Portfolio models in purchasing have received large-scale recognition and have gained an increased degree of adoption, especially in Western Europe (Gelderman, 2003). Kraljic (1983) introduced the first comprehensive portfolio approach for purchasing and supply management. This approach includes the construction of a portfolio matrix that classifies products on the basis of two dimensions: profit impact and supply risk. Purchasing portfolio models, including Kraljics, have been developed from a point of view of a well-developed industrialized logistics infrastructure. The buyer-supplier relationships of companies situated in remote areas with an undeveloped logistics infrastructure, however, are subject to, and often defined by, those (poor) logistics infrastructures. A poor logistics infrastructure will have an impact on the supply risk, but the Kraljic approach does not explicitly deal with issues of logistics and (a poor) infrastructure. This led to the following problem statement, How may Kraljics purchasing portfolio model be used under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?.
To deal with this problem statement the following four research questions were formulated: 1. Which characteristics of remoteness should be considered when adapting the Kraljic model for use in remote areas? 2. Which adaptations to the dimensions of the Kraljic matrix are required, when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure? 3. Which adaptations to the categories of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure? 4. Which adaptations to the strategic recommendations of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?
The research method started with a literature review that included the research of many subject areas that are related to purchasing, such as, ABC-analysis, commodity analysis, purchasing portfolio models, and logistics as well as literature review on the characteristics of remote environments. The information gained from the literature review formed a framework for the adaptation of the Kraljic purchasing portfolio matrix for remote environments. In this study remoteness or a remote environment is assumed to be geographically distant suppliers where the buyer is located in an environment of poor or undeveloped logistics infrastructure, often ii developing countries (Caddick and Dale, 1987 and Fawcett, 2000). The characteristics to consider for a remote environment are mainly linked to logistical problems and a lack of understanding of the importance of logistics for the supply chain. The answer to the second research question reveals that the dimension of profit impact is less dependent on the location of the business; therefore this dimension does not need to be adapted for a remote environment, while for the supply risk several factors have been identified that could have an impact on the supply risk dimension. With respect to adaptations to the categories of the Kraljic matrix, no need was found to adapt these for remote environments. Therefore, the original four categories, bottleneck, non-critical, leverage, and strategic quadrants, can be used for remote environments. This study resulted in the addition of two strategic recommendations to the Kraljic matrix: one strategy is the use of remote purchasing agents and the other is the use of an advanced logistics management system between buyer and supplier. Both these strategies are aimed at reducing the supply risk for remote environments.
In conjunction with the result from the literature study an action research method was used to apply the adapted Kraljic matrix for the State Oil Company of Suriname, Staatsolie, a company that has to do business within a remote environment.
In order to fill in the matrix and to arrive at the strategic recommendations, a five-step approach as outlined by Gelderman (2003) was used. The use of this methodology upon a sample of 44 materials or classes of materials at Staatsolie resulted in a current purchasing portfolio matrix with three main clusters in respectively the non-critical, the leverage and the strategic quadrant. The portfolio matrix demonstrates that Staatsolie is facing an extreme supply risk with a substantial part of its items that have a high profit impact, as a result of which it depends only on one or a limited amount of suppliers for these materials.
Through application of differentiated purchasing strategies, the supply risk can be reduced, resulting in a much better negotiating position for Staatsolie. The reduced supply risk will protect Staatsolie against disastrous supply interruptions and unplanned shutdowns of its operations. Due to the stronger negotiating position Staatsolie can make the most of their potential buying power.
This study made clear that for remote environments adaptations have to be made to the Kraljic matrix at the supply risk dimension and to the strategic recommendations. Further research is recommended to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of remote aspects on the Kraljic matrix. iii
ABBREVIATIONS
BCG Boston Consulting Group E&P Exploration & Production HRM Human Resources Management HSE Health Safety and Environment ISO International Organization for Standardization LDC Less Developed Countries MCC Maintenance Control Center MMBLS Million Barrels MW Mega Watt PEP Production Expansion Program PPP Purchasing Policy and Procedures
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1 Section 1.1. General.....................................................................................................................1 Section 1.2. Problem Statement and research questions.............................................................2 Section 1.3. Research methods ....................................................................................................3 Section 1.4. Scope and Limitations..............................................................................................4 Section 1.5. Chapter Overview....................................................................................................4 Section 1.6. Summary...................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................5 Section 2.1. From Pareto to Kraljic ............................................................................................5 Section 2.2. The Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix.................................................................8 Section 2.3. Criticisms and Support of the Kraljic Matrix ........................................................16 Section 2.4. Remoteness.............................................................................................................19 Section 2.5. Summary.................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3. THE KRALJ IC MATRIX ADAPTED TO REMOTENESS................22 Section 3.1. Adaptations to the Dimensions ..............................................................................22 Section 3.2. Adaptations to the Categories................................................................................24 Section 3.3. Impact on the strategic recommendations .............................................................25 Section 3.4. Summary.................................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 4. PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS WITH THE KRALJ IC MATRIX..............28 Section 4.1. Methodology...........................................................................................................28 Section 4.2. Summary.................................................................................................................31
CHAPTER 5. BUSINESS CONTEXT ..................................................................................33 Section 5.1. Company description .............................................................................................33 Section 5.2. Purchasing Function within Staatsolie..................................................................34 Section 5.3. Inventory Management ..........................................................................................35 Section 5.4. Summary.................................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 6. RESEARCH RESULTS..................................................................................38 Section 6.1. Preparation............................................................................................................38 Section 6.2. Designing and filling in the matrix ........................................................................38 Section 6.3. Interpretation of the results....................................................................................41 Section 6.4. Defining strategic directions..................................................................................44 Section 6.5. Summary.................................................................................................................49 v CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................50 Section 7.1. Conclusions........................................................................................................50 Section 7.2. Recommendations ..............................................................................................52
APPENDIX 1: Stages of Purchasing Sophistication, Kraljic 1983..............................53
APPENDIX 2: The Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, Kraljic 1983.....................................54
Portfolio models have been used in strategic planning and marketing, but their application to the field of purchasing has been limited. This, however, appears to be changing as procurement management is viewed more and more as being of strategic importance (Nellore and Sderquist, 2000). According to Kraljic (1983), instead of simply monitoring current developments, management must learn to use these developments to its own advantage. This calls for nothing less than a total change of perspective: from purchasing which is an operational function, to supply management which is strategic. The introduction of the Kraljic portfolio approach can be considered a major breakthrough in the development of professional purchasing (Gelderman and Van Weele, 2003). Kraljics approach has inspired many academics to undertake further research into purchasing portfolio models (Canils and Gelderman, 2005).
Obviously, not all products and not all buyer-supplier relationships are to be managed in the same manner. In general, purchasing portfolio models aim at developing differentiated purchasing and supplier strategies. Kraljic (1983) introduced the first comprehensive portfolio approach for purchasing and supply management. Shortly after the oil crisis in 1973, he posited that purchasing must become supply management, advising companies to progress toward more effective supply management. Kraljic accompanied this advice with a practical portfolio tool for shaping the supply strategy.
Kraljics categories and strategies recommendations matrix was developed for BASF, a European chemical multinational, in the early seventies, around 1973, 1974. Kraljic (1983) made a reasonable case for the usefulness of his portfolio approach by describing the experiences of four large industrial companies. More recent empirical studies have corroborated the usefulness of the matrix in practice (e.g. Carter, 1997; Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog, 1999; Gelderman and Van Weele, 2003 and 2005; J ohnson and Wagner, 2004). However, all of these studies have been carried out in companies that are located in developed countries under conditions of a well-developed infrastructure.
1 In many developing and former state-regulated countries the logistic infrastructure is poor, customs and regulations unclear and inefficient, the logistics supply market underdeveloped, and the risk for crime high (Andersson and Norrman, 2002). These conditions result in relatively high supply risks, as the number of trustworthy or capable partners is low and the few existing ones enjoy a better negotiating position. Obviously, for companies located in these environments it is more difficult and more costly to develop close, productive relationships with their geographically distant suppliers. The challenge begins with identifying and qualifying capable suppliers in regions of the world where buyers have little experience (Fawcett, 2000). However, it remains unclear whether the Kraljic matrix could be applied under such remote conditions. The concept remote conditions within this study refers to a situation where a company is operating in a country or region where the logistics infrastructure for the procurement of materials is limited or not well developed.
Section 1.2. Problem Statement and research questions
Purchasing portfolio models, including Kraljics, have been developed from a point of view of well- developed industrialized logistics infrastructures. The buyer-supplier relationships of companies situated in remote areas with an undeveloped logistics infrastructure, however, are subject to, and often defined by, those (poor) logistics infrastructures. Poor logistics infrastructures will influence lead times and therefore will impact the supply risk. It is clear that an undeveloped logistics infrastructure should play a significant part in the Kraljic approach. However, the Kraljic approach does not explicitly deal with issues of logistics and (a poor) infrastructure. This gave rise to the problem statement for this study:
How may Kraljics purchasing portfolio model be used under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?
In order to deal with the problem statement, the following research questions were answered by this study: 1. Which characteristics of remoteness should be considered when adapting the Kraljic model for use in remote areas? 2. Which adaptations to the dimensions of the Kraljic matrix are required, when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure? 2 3. Which adaptations to the categories of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure? 4. Which adaptations to the strategic recommendations of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?
Section 1.3. Research methods
The main objective of this research paper was to identify and describe the application of the Kraljic purchasing portfolio model to remote areas. To establish a theoretical framework a literature research was conducted. Based on the literature study, a revised version of the Kraljic approach was developed, including adjusted dimensions (factors), and strategic recommendations. This new purchasing portfolio model was tested and refined by means of action research in which the new model was used in practice. The model was tested and evaluated in a location where the logistics infrastructure is relatively poor, namely at the State Oil Company of Suriname, Staatsolie. Figure 1.1 provides an overview of the research model.
Purchasing Portfolio Theory Logistics Management Theory Adaptation to Kraljic Model for Remote Areas Conclusions and Recommendations Supply Management Remote Areas Analysis Case Study Expert Interviews
Figure 1.1. Research Model
3 Section 1.4. Scope and Limitations
The application of the adjusted Kraljic model for remote areas was validated for only one company. Within the scope of this research paper no attempt was made to validate the framework through a broader audience. The results of the study should not, therefore, be extrapolated to other companies and other industries.
Section 1.5. Chapter Overview
This research paper is organized as follows: Chapter one is an introduction of the research subject regarding purchasing portfolio models and the characteristics of remote areas. Chapter two provides an overview of the literature research pertaining to purchasing portfolio models. In this chapter a detailed overview is given of the use of purchasing portfolio models to define the different strategies in buyer supplier relations. In addition, the Kraljic purchasing portfolio matrix is discussed in detail and some logistics constraints for remote areas are outlined. Chapter three supplies an overview of the adaptations of the Kraljic matrix to remote environments Chapter four supplies an overview of the research methodology used. Chapter five describes the business context within which the study was carried out. Chapter six expounds upon the findings and the analysis Chapter seven provides the conclusion and recommendations.
Section 1.6. Summary
The present chapter demonstrated the need for adaptation of the Kraljic purchasing portfolio model for use under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure. The process through which this paper attempted to arrive at such a model was laid down. 4 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Section 2.1. From Pareto to Kraljic
2.1.1. Pareto Analysis
For a long while the ABC-analysis or Pareto-analysis was the only tool available for differentiating between important and less important purchases (Gelderman, 2005). In a Pareto curve items are placed into one of three classes according to the cumulative number of purchasing orders and their cumulative value. The A-category contains 20% of the number of orders, which typically accounts for 80% of the total value. The B-category contains 30% of the items accounting for less than 20% of the spending. The remaining 50% of the items accounts for less then 2% of the total spending of the C-category. ABC-analysis is considered to be helpful in situations where the majority of purchases spend is generated by a limited number of material categories.
ABC-analysis is usually applied to the financial value of the purchasing portfolio, essentially a volume characteristic. Another volume characteristic is the number of parts, especially important in discrete production. Instead of a volume dimension, it is also possible to use the cumulative number of supplies. This classification differentiates suppliers with significant spend from the mass suppliers with only small purchase volumes (Hartmann et al., 2002).
ABC-analysis concentrates on the financial value of items and ignores the cost of poor quality (Burt, 1989), performance risk, social risk and other components (Hartmann et al., 2002). In addition, the ABC-analysis fails to discriminate between the methods which should be used to obtain different item categories (Steel and Court, 1996). ABC-analysis does not recommend spe- cific strategies for each category, it merely provides information on the concentration of purchase spend. It is a classification tool, not a portfolio model, since it does not provide (differentiated) purchasing and supplier strategies.
2.1.2. Commodity Analysis
Commodity analysis is another example of a classification tool in purchasing (Gelderman, 2005). This type of analysis divides the total purchasing volume in percentages for all combinations of 5 product groups and principal users. It reveals key users and the commodities that are most important to them (Bauer, 1977). Commodity analysis identifies critical procurement areas, is helpful for setting priorities, and provides recommendations with respect to the organization of purchasing (assignment of responsibilities and centralized or decentralized purchasing). J ust as in ABC-analysis, commodity analysis should be classified as a classification tool, since it too does not provide (differentiated) purchasing and supplier strategies. They are both examples of a spend analysis which is limited to the classification of the items and suppliers according to their financial value.
2.1.3. Portfolio Analysis
A portfolio refers to a collection of related items. The portfolio concept stresses the importance of the whole rather than the parts. It reflects the importance for balance in a collection on individual elements. As a consequence it allows for differentiation and diversification, in our aim for balance and an optimal use of limited resources. The portfolio concept has it roots in financial investments in the 1950s. For business purposes, portfolio approaches haven been developed for applications in investment theory, strategic management, marketing, and purchasing management. In general, the portfolio concept focuses on the interdependencies among management decisions and emphasizes an integrated approach (Turnbull, 1990).
According to Ellram and Olson (1997), portfolio models have primarily been used in strategic decision-making to support resource allocation decisions among strategic business units. Perhaps the most used, misused and discussed portfolio model is the Boston Consulting Groups (BCG) growth/share matrix.
Portfolio models have been used in strategic planning and marketing, but their application to the field of purchasing has been limited. This seems to be changing, however, as procurement management has become more strategic (Nellore and Sderquist, 2000).
Kraljic (1983) introduced the first comprehensive portfolio approach for purchasing and supply management. This approach includes the construction of a portfolio matrix that classifies products on the basis of two dimensions: profit impact and supply risk with both a low and high end. The result is a 2x2 matrix and a classification in four categories, figure 2.1 below. With the help of this matrix, professional purchasers can differentiate between the various items and supplier relations and choose strategies that are appropriate for each category, thereby effectively managing suppliers (Nellore and Sderquist, 2000). Quite a number of scholars have introduced variations on the original Kraljic matrix (e.g. Elliot-Shircore and Steele, 1985; Syson, 1992; Evans and Hadeler, 1994; Ellram and Olsen, 1997; Gelderman, 2000; Van Weele, 2002). However, the proposed matrices are very similar to the Kraljic matrix; the models employ practically the same dimensions, the same categories and the same recommendations (Gelderman and Van Weele, 2005).
Non-Critical Leverage Strategic Bottleneck Supply Risk Profit Impact Diversify Balance Exploit Low High L o w H i g h Non-Critical Leverage Strategic Bottleneck Supply Risk Profit Impact Diversify Balance Exploit Low High L o w H i g h
It is fair to conclude that the Kraljic matrix has become the standard in the field of purchasing portfolio models (Gelderman, 2003). 7 In the course of time the Kraljic approach entered many textbooks on purchasing and supply management. Purchasing portfolio models have gained ground in both research and practice (Nellore and Sderquist, 2000).
The Kraljic portfolio approach can be considered an important breakthrough in the development of theory in the field of purchasing and supply management. Syson (1992) characterized it as a powerful tool to be used for diagnostic and prescriptive purposes and that goes far beyond the well- known, rather simplistic ABC-analysis.
Commenting on purchasing management Ellram and Olson (1997), stated that portfolio models could be used to improve the allocation of scarce resources by being one method of identifying which groups of products, suppliers or relationships warrant greater attention than others.
Section 2.2. The Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix
Section 2.2.1. General
Kraljic (1983) advised managers to guard their firms against damaging supply interruptions and to deal with continuous technological change and economic growth. In his seminal paper he advised companies to establish more effective supply management. He proclaimed, purchasing must become supply management (Kraljic 1983, p. 109). He presented a figure as Exhibit I (see Appendix 1) that classified the stages of purchasing sophistication within companies. This figure identified four stages: (1) purchasing management, (2) materials management, (3) sourcing management, and (4) supply management. Kraljic (1983, p. 111) further argued that supply management is particularly relevant when the supply market is complex and the importance of purchasing is high.
Specifically for the fourth stage of purchasing sophistication, supply management, Kraljic (1983) proposed a four-phase framework for developing supply strategies for single products or product groups. In the first phase, a company is to classify all its purchased products depending on the associated profit impact and supply risk into one of four categories: Strategic, Bottleneck, Non- Critical, and Leverage. Subsequently, the company should weigh the bargaining power of its suppliers against its own power. At the third phase, the company should position the products that 8 were identified in the first phase as strategic (high profit impact and high supply risk), in a portfolio matrix. Finally, depending on the companys own strength and the strength of the supply market, the company is to develop purchasing strategies and action plans for products labeled strategic. Three general purchasing strategies are recommended: exploitation, in the case of buyer dominance; balance, in the case of a balanced relationship; and diversification, in the case of supplier dominance. In his 1983 article Kraljic introduced a nine-block Purchasing Portfolio Matrix to be used for strategic items as Exhibit IV (see Appendix 2).
It should be noted that Kraljic focuses on strategic products; for the other item categories, bottleneck, non-critical, and leverage, Kraljic merely formulated a number of main tasks. Other scholars have filled this gap (e.g. Van Weele, 2002; Syson, 1992; Elliott-Shircore and Steele, 1985). They refined the matrix and elaborated on the 'main tasks' for bottleneck, non-critical and leverage items. In addition, they formulated strategic recommendations, resulting in an overall purchasing strategy recommendation for each portfolio quadrant (see figure 2.2). This refined matrix is commonly referred to as Kraljics Purchasing Portfolio Matrix (e.g. Ellram and Olsen, 1997; Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog, 1999; Van Weele, 2002; Gelderman, 2003), not to be confused with his original nine-block model.
With the help of the refined Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, professional purchasers can differentiate between the various supplier relations and choose strategies that are appropriate for each category and thereby effectively manage suppliers (Nellore and Sderquist, 2000).
Supply Risk Profit Impact Assure supply Form partnerships Exploit purchasing power Ensure Efficient processing Non-Critical Leverage Strategic Bottleneck Low High L o w H i g h Supply Risk Profit Impact Assure supply Form partnerships Exploit purchasing power Ensure Efficient processing Non-Critical Leverage Strategic Bottleneck Low High L o w H i g h
Figure 2.2: The Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix (modified from Kraljic, 1983, p. 111) 9 Gelderman (2003), has discussed and evaluated Kraljic approach on: dimensions; categories; and strategic recommendations. This is described in the following sections.
2.2.1.1. Dimensions
a. Theoretical foundations of the Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix A generally accepted view on the purchasing function is that it should prevent disruptions in production of other activities. Some authors describe the general objectives of purchasing and supply management in terms of the five rights which professional purchasing should achieve in the acquisition of materials: the right quality, from the right supplier, in the right quantity, at the right time, and at the right place (Dobler and Burt, 1996). The right supply, the right time and the right place refer to logistics aspects of supply management. Products should be bought for the right price, which refers to the commercial and financial aspects of purchasing. An attractive feature of the portfolio approach is that it encompasses two key variables with respect to these crucial aspects: profit impact is linked to the commercial requirements, supply risk is related to logistics issues, amongst others. However, it is not clear why only these particular dimensions are selected for use in Kraljics portfolio approach. Gelderman (2003) concluded that Kraljics article does not provide any reference to a theoretical foundation or comprehensive perspective. In his article Kraljic offers a basic tool for purchasing management, although it is without any reference to literature or documented evidence. The tool is developed for practical use. The combination of the two dimensions is to minimize supply vulnerability and make the most of potential buying power (Kraljic, 1983: 112).
b. Measurement issues In general, decisions based on portfolio models are proven to be sensitive to the choice of dimensions, factors and weights. There is a demarcation problem with respect to the measurement of key variables. What is the exact distinction between high and low supply risk. Ellram and Olson (1997) emphasized that the weighting of each factor is the most important of the implementation process, but at the same time very subjective. De Boer (1997) suggested a fully customized approach: organizations should determine their own criteria as well as their own specific threshold values. Nellore and Sderquist (2000) pointed out that there is a risk that the variables used in portfolio analysis might not be accurate proxies for the dimensions they are suppose to measure.
10 c. Confusion with the first matrix dimensions According to Gelderman (2003) many authors refer to the Kraljic approach as being a single portfolio matrix, based on the dimensions strategic importance (or just importance) and complexity of the supply market, see for instance Kamann (2000), Ellram and Olson (1997), and Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog (1999). Kraljic himself is partly responsible for this confusion over the names of the dimensions Gelderman (2003). Before introducing the portfolio approach, Kraljic (1983: 111) presented a figure in as Exhibit 1 (see Appendix 1) that uses importance of purchasing and complexity of supply market as dimensions. However, this figure is not part of the portfolio approach, it does not classify product categories, nor does it provide strategic recom- mendations. The name of the picture clarifies the purpose of the matrix; the stages of purchasing sophistication.
2.2.1.2. Categories
a. The focus on one category Kraljic is concerned about disastrous supply disruptions of vital materials. From this perspective it is logical that Kraljic should focus on strategic items with a high profit impact and a high supply risk. The second matrix, presented by Kraljic as Exhibit IV (see Appendix 2), only applies to strategic items. For the other categories a list is provided merely of main tasks, the required information and the advised decision level. The conclusion is that these categories are disregarded. An elaboration for strategies for bottleneck, leverage and non-critical items was offered by Van Weele in 1992.
b. The role of power and dependence The fundamental assumption of portfolio models seems to be that differences in power and dependence between buyer and supplier exist (Canils and Gelderman, 2005). However, Kraljics approach does not explicitly deal with issues of power and dependence. Some of the strategic recommendations obviously refer to prevailing power structure (exploitation of power), others do not. In Kraljics first matrix it is not clear in what way profit impact and supply risk are related to the relative power position of the buying company. Presumably, the buyer is more powerful than the supplier in the case of leverage items, while the opposite might be true for bottleneck items. In the second matrix, for the strategic item categories, the role of power is more clearly defined; a buyer-supplier relationship can be balanced, buyer-dominated or supplier-dominated. The Kraljic 11 approach deals in a rather implicit way with issues of power and dependence. The application implies dealing with two matrices without being clear about the role of power and dependence.
2.2.1.3. Strategic Recommendations
(a) The Suppliers side The Kraljic approach does not explicitly take into account the possible strategies and reactions of suppliers (Kamann, 2000). Nellore and Sderquist (2000) confirmed that it is imperative for any portfolio used to indicate the characteristics of the supplier with regard to the specification generation, the required relationship and required type of specification for a given component. Unquestionably, the suppliers side should be included in any strategic thinking in the field of purchasing and supply management. Different solutions have been proposed for this issue, although it should be said that the Kraljic approach does not imply the neglect on the suppliers side. The impression might be nourished by Kraljics focus on supply vulnerability, threats of material scarcity and the situation on supply markets (Kraljic, 1983:109). Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog (1999) proposed an additional evaluation of suppliers according to three dimensions: performance assessment, relation characteristics and network position. The most appropriate approach to adopt with each supplier can be determined by combining the assessment of the suppliers view with the own purchasing Kraljic matrix. For example, a product could be termed a strategic or bottleneck item from a purchasing perspective, but the account categorized by the supplier as nuisance or exploitable; any aggressive or confrontational behaviour could result in the supplier withdrawing from the situation, leaving the buying company with a serious problem. Alternatively, should a product be strategic in the Kraljic matrix and also be core for the supplier, there will be possibilities in forming close relationships and a partnership.
(b) Influencing the power balance: dynamics in the matrix Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog (1999) stated: strategies that are based solely on Kraljics matrix lack the dynamics of the power that the suppliers can obtain. They too stressed the importance of taking the suppliers situation into account. Kempeners and van Weele (1997) pointed at the natural conflict of interests in buyer-supplier relationships. Both are likely to prefer a dominant power position due to the attached benefits. As a result, positions in the Kraljic matrix will always be amendable to the dynamics of buyer-seller relationships. Parties are inclined to seek possibilities for influencing their relatively powerful position.
12 (c) The nature of strategic recommendations Gelderman (2003) argued that the strategic recommendations in the Kraljic matrix are quite reactive in nature. They react and adapt to the prevailing structure of power in buyer-supplier relationships. It is not clear if and how other positions in the matrix are to be pursued through the implementation of the recommended main tasks. However, Kraljics Exhibit IV Purchasing Portfolio Matrix for strategic items is especially designed to develop counter-strategies vis--vis key suppliers (Kraljic, 1983). By plotting the buying strengths against the strengths of the supply market, three basic power positions are identified and associated with three different suppliers strategies: balance, exploit and diversify. It should be noted, however, that the strategies are rather generic by nature, providing only rough indications for the most appropriate suppliers strategies. Discussing Kraljic, most publications are limited to his figure with stages of purchasing sophistication shown in his article as Exhibit I in Appendix 1 with the well-known categories: strategic, leverage, non- critical and bottleneck. It might be assumed that all strategic products are to be managed by means of (strategic) partnership. Looking at Kraljics Purchasing Portfolio Matrix for strategic items in Appendix 2, we must conclude that this was certainly not Kraljics intention.
Section 2.2.2. The Kraljic Matrix with its Strategic Directions
A recent study by Gelderman and Van Weele (2003) paid attention to the experience of purchasing professionals with the use of the portfolio matrix in practice. On the basis of three in-depth case studies they found that practitioners distinguish between several separate purchasing strategies within each portfolio quadrant. Some of these strategies focused on keeping the current position in the quadrant, while other strategies were directed towards moving to another position. The case studies revealed that, in addition to Kraljic's theory, experienced practitioners were very aware of the different choices within each quadrant. Based on the interviews and the overview of selected strategies, it was concluded that for each category two different kinds of strategic directions could be distinguished: 1. actions to hold the same positions in the matrix, and 2. actions to pursue other positions in the matrix.
Holding on to a position implicitly means that current circumstances are taken for granted. Gelderman and Van Weele (2003) observed that a position in the matrix could be accepted for different reasons, sometimes positive, sometimes referring to a negative choice. A position might be preferred because a firm is convinced that it is the best position for a certain item. In other cases a 13 position might be accepted, because there are no realistic possibilities for change. The first type of strategy is of a more active, radical nature. When possible and desirable, other positions in the matrix are identified and pursued. Figure 2.3 gives an overview of strategic directions for all categories. If we take a look at the bottleneck and strategic quadrant at the right side of the matrix, those movements that reduce the supply risk are pursued. In terms of the matrix, this means moving to the left. Non-critical items are moved upwards; leverage items could be exchanged for strategic positions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 Maintain strategic partnership Accept the locked-in partnership Terminate partnership, find new supplier Develop a strategic partnership Exploit buying power (partner of convenience) Individual ordering, pursue Efficient processing Pooling of requirements Reduce dependence and risk, Find other solutions Accept the dependence, reduce the negative consequences Suppl y Ri sk Low High L o w H i g h Pr of i t Impact St r at egi c Bot t l eneck Non-cr i t i cal Lever age 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 Maintain strategic partnership Accept the locked-in partnership Terminate partnership, find new supplier Develop a strategic partnership Exploit buying power (partner of convenience) Individual ordering, pursue Efficient processing Pooling of requirements Reduce dependence and risk, Find other solutions Accept the dependence, reduce the negative consequences Suppl y Ri sk Low High L o w H i g h Pr of i t Impact St r at egi c Bot t l eneck Non-cr i t i cal Lever age
Fig. 2.3. The Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix with Strategic Directions for all categories
he strategic positions and directions as illustrated in figure 1 can, according to Gelderman and van Source: Gelderman and Van Weele (2003) T Weele (2003), be elaborated as follows:
14 Bottleneck items
(1) Moving to another position: decomplex the product, find a new supplier Bottleneck items are by definition of low value and high risk. It should be interesting enough, especially from an economic point of view, to search for other solutions. The solutions must lead to a lower level of supply risk and a lower level of dependency on a supplier. This means shift towards the non-critical quadrant.
(2) Holding the position: accept the dependency on a supplier, assurance of supply If no other options are feasible, the position remains the same.
Non-critical items
(3) Moving to another position: pooling of requirements Preferably, non-critical items are put together in large quantities, increasing the buying power of the firm. If necessary, a process of standardization is pursued. The strategic direction is in all cases towards the leverage quadrant, resulting in lower direct and indirect purchasing costs.
(4) Holding the position: individual ordering efficient processing Whenever it is not possible to combine the purchasing requirements, the only remaining option is some type of individual ordering. The purchasing strategy is aimed at reducing the administrative costs which are connected to administrative activities.
Leverage items
(5) Holding position: exploit buying power, maintain a partnership of convenience This generally preferred leverage position can be used for a rather aggressive supplier management. Competitive bidding and short-term contracts are feasible options to exploit the leverage position.
(6) Moving to another position: develop a strategic partnership Exceptionally, the leverage position is abandoned in search for a more strategic partnership with a supplier. A cooperative strategy is only pursued, if the supplier involved is willing and capable of contributing to the competitive advantage of the firm. Such a role is only feasible for technologically advanced suppliers.
15 Strategic items
(7) Holding the position: maintain a strategic partnership Long-term relationships with key suppliers should always contribute to the competitive advantage of the firm. Such relationships include mutual trust, mutual commitment, and an open exchange of information. A successful partnership can be very valuable for both parties.
(8) Holding the position: accept a locked-in partnership A position in the strategic quadrant may be due to not chosen, unfavorable conditions (e.g. patents, monopoly, high switching costs). These circumstances produce an involuntary stay at the strategic quadrant.
(9) Moving to another position: terminate a partnership, find a new supplier A suppliers performance may become unacceptable and incorrigible. The firm will have to search, develop and contract another supplier, while bringing the relationship with the non-performing supplier to an end.
Section 2.3. Criticisms and Support of the Kraljic Matrix
In contrast to the growing acceptance and usage, purchasing portfolio models have become the target of severe criticism (Gelderman and Van Weele 2005). Some argue that the complexity of business decisions does not allow for just simple recommendations. Kraljic (1983) made a reasonable case for the usefulness of the portfolio approach by describing the experiences of four large industrial companies.
Section 2.3.1. Support of the Kraljic Matrix
Some case studies indicted that a purchasing portfolio model is a powerful tool for:
Coordinating the sourcing patterns of fairly autonomous strategic business units within companies, resulting in leverage and synergy (Gelderman and Van Weele 2002). Differentiating the overall purchasing strategy, with different strategies for different supplier groups (Lilliecreutz and Ydreskog 1999) 16 Discussing, visualizing and illustrating the possibilities of the development of differentiated purchasing strategies (Gelderman and Van Weele 2002)
Some other case studies indicated that: Portfolio approaches can be used to improve the allocation of scarce resources (Olsen and Ellram 1997) A portfolio model provides a framework to understand and to focus a companys supply strategy (Evans and Hadeler 1994) A portfolio approach can make the difference between an unfocussed, ineffective purchasing organization and a focused, effective one (Evans and Hadeler 1994), especially for those companies that have never thought systematically about their procurement expenditure (Cox 1997) The utilization of this purchasing methodology may lift the purchasing activity out of the tactical, firefighting mode into a strategic role (Elliot-Shircore and Steele 1985) It convinces top management of the effective role that purchasing can play in contributing to a companys profit and success (Carter 1997)
Section 2.3.2. Criticism of the Kraljic Matrix
Purchasing portfolio models have been severely criticized too and there are doubts and questions with respect to the following measurement issues:
The selection of variables: How could one know whether the most appropriate variables are being used? (Nellore and Sderquist 2000) The suppliers side: Why is the suppliers side disregarded in most portfolio models? (Homburg 1995, Kamann 2000) The operationalization of dimensions: What is exactly meant by profit impact and supply risk? (Ramsay 1996) The measurement of variables: How should the weighting of factors take place? (Olsen and Ellram 1997) The line of demarcation: What is the exact difference between high and low supply risk? (Homburg 1995) The simplicity of recommendations: How could one deduce strategies from an analysis that is based on just two dimensions? (Dubois and Pedersen 2002) 17
Other criticisms relate to more fundamental issues and objections: Portfolio models have a tendency to result in strategies that are independent of each other (Coat, 1983) Portfolio models do not depict the interdependencies between two or more items in the matrix (Olsen and Ellram 1997) From a difference perspective, Cox (1997) condemned the portfolio methodology, because it does not provide any proactive thinking about what can be done to change the existing reality in the various supply chains in which companies are involved.
Gelderman and van Weele (2003) reported that experienced users have found a reply to the critique of portfolio models, stressing that there is no simple, standardized blueprint for the application of portfolio models. It requires critical thinking and sophistication of the purchasing function.
A more recent study by Gelderman and Van Weele (2005) attempted to provide new insights into the relationship between purchasing sophistication (or maturity) and the usage of purchasing portfolio models. Purchasing sophistication can be viewed as a key characteristic of the purchasing function. The sophistication level of the function determines the extent to which the purchasing function will be included in strategic management decision process (Pearson and Gritzmacher 1990). In the study of Gelderman and Van Weele (2005), purchasing sophistication is defined as the level of professionalism of the purchasing function. Gelderman and Van Weele (2005) used the following characteristics for the development of a purchasing sophistication construct:
Based on a survey of purchasing professionals by Gelderman and Van Weele (2005), the study provides evidence that purchasing portfolio usage is associated with purchasing sophistication. Users contrast in a positive way with nonusers of the portfolio, especially on their professionalism (skills) and their position within their companies. The results of the study imply that top managers discovering that portfolio management methods have not been endorsed by their purchasing organizations should question the relative sophistication of the purchasing function. These companies are probably lagging behind both in terms of professionalism and position of the purchasing organization in the overall company hierarchy. The application of purchasing portfolio management seems to have prerequisites both in terms of professionalism that needs to be present and the exposure, i.e., locus that the purchasing domain has within the overall company organization. The application of purchasing portfolio techniques requires skills extending beyond 18 traditional administrative competences. In addition, the purchasing function needs to have a clear presence and position within the organizational hierarchy.
Section 2.4. Remoteness
In this study remoteness is limited to geographically distant suppliers where the buyer is located in a developing country with an environment of poor or undeveloped logistics infrastructure (Caddick and Dale, 1987 and Fawcett, 2000).
According to Fawcett (2000), it is simply more difficult and more costly to develop close, productive relationships with geographically distant suppliers. Logistics problems have been identified as the biggest obstacle in international sourcing. However, neither the purchasing nor the logistics literature contains much information on logistics considerations in global sourcing.
As stated by Das and Handfield (1997), overseas transactions affect lead times and lead times variability and carry increase risks of supply interruptions. Other common problems in international sourcing include buyer-supplier time-zone lags, costs of obtaining post purchase supplier services and rectifying errors in quality, part count, billing, etc. Add to that the basic difficulty in forming a meaningful relationship with a supplier separated by oceans, customs, cultures and language.
The challenges many less developed countries (LDCs) currently face in developing their logistics systems are legacies of the past (Razzaque, 1997). These are fundamental problems inherited not only from their embryonic trappings but also from lack of understanding of logistics role and importance. Furthermore, Razzaque stated that a rich and expanding literature on logistics systems and management in advanced nations is available, in contrast to which the literature on those in developing nations is only emerging. A survey of 532 publications on logistics management in major Western journals for the period J anuary 1971 to J une 1995 revealed less than 20 contributions on developing nations.
According to Das and Handfield (1997), a number of studies have examined logistics in various countries and regions. Studies examining distribution systems in industrialized nations are most prevalent. Caddick and Dale (1987), Waters and Soman (1989) and Cook (1989) concentrate on 19 developing regions and remote areas. These studies provide useful information on a range of issues pertaining to international logistics.
In many countries, e.g. developing or formerly state-regulated ones, the logistics infrastructure is bad, customs and regulations unclear and inefficient, the logistics supply market underdeveloped and the crime risks are high (Andersson and Norrman, 2002). All this makes the supply risk high, as the number of trustworthy or capable partners is low and the few existing ones enjoy a better negotiating position.
Goonatilake (1990) provides useful insights into inventory management practices in developing countries and contrasts them with those in developed countries. In developing countries inventory control is lax and bureaucratic with little pressure to meet delivery dates and inventory costs; infrastructure is poor; many of supply sources are overseas; and there is a shortage of trained personnel. Thus inventories are used to buffer poor infrastructure and greater uncertainty.
If a country does not have a good base network of dependable transportation, warehousing, communication and other related facilities, desired configuration of the network by the firm will be difficult. Literature reveals that many LDCs lack an environment conducive to the development of a good logistics system Das and Handfield (1997).
According to Razzaque (1997), it is clear that problems of logistics systems and barriers to logistics development are unique to each country. The provision of links between productivity facilities and consuming units, which is the fundamental role of logistics, is affected by differences in various country specific factors such as geographical features, socio-economic and politico-legal systems, cultural realities, industrial development and resources endowments.
As stated by Svensson (2000), disturbance in the supply chain may be mainly categorized as either quantitative or qualitative. The causes of quantitative disturbances are events that create a lack of components and materials for downstream activities in the supply chain, for example: breakdowns or delays in transportation (i.e. by road or sea) caused by unexpected conditions, bad weather. Causes of qualitative disturbance are events that lead to deficiencies in components and materials in the supply chain, for example measurement errors in components, non-functioning articles. Due to emerging situations suddenly affecting the supply chain, short-term disturbances appear often in the context of quantitative and qualitative disturbances. 20
To conclude, this section has given the characteristics of remote environments in the supply chain. These characteristics will be used in the next chapter in connection with the Kraljic matrix. The first research question Which characteristics of remoteness should be considered when adapting the Kraljic model for use in remote areas? has therefore been answered.
Section 2.5. Summary
In this chapter the most common purchasing portfolio models are identified and one of the most commonly used models, the Kraljic Matrix, is discussed in detail. The strategic directions as set by Kraljic (1983), as well as other strategies recently published by Gelderman and van Weele (2003) are also outlined. Some criticism and support on the Kraljic matrix are discussed. Studies by Gelderman et al (2005) provide evidence that purchasing portfolio usage is associated with purchasing sophistication. Further detailed analysis is given on the characteristics of remoteness and especially the logistics problems associated with the remote areas as well as the impact remote areas have on the supply risk. Remote conditions, as defined in section 2.4, have an impact on the supply risk. Lead times are affected and due to the logistics constraints there is an increase risk of supply interruptions. Because of the impact on the supply risk some of the purchasing strategies shall have to be focused on reducing the risk or look for alternative sources of supply. The information gathered from the literature, especially the information for remote areas, offers a framework for the adaptation of the Kraljic matrix to these areas. The next chapter proposes specific adaptations to the Kraljic matrix to remoteness.
21
CHAPTER 3. THE KRALJIC MATRIX ADAPTED TO REMOTENESS
In this study the characteristics to consider when studying the purchasing function in remote locations are limited to geographically distant suppliers where the buyer is located in a developing country with an environment of poor or undeveloped logistics infrastructure. Purchasing portfolio models, including Kraljics, have been developed from a point of view of a well-developed industrialized logistics infrastructure. However, for companies situated in remote areas, as formulated in section 2.4, the supply risk is particularly influenced by the logistics infrastructure. Kraljic also considers the logistics aspects in his matrix, which is included in the supply risk dimension, but the impact of logistics in the supply risk was considered minor, a logical consequence of the fact that his research was done in areas with an industrialized logistics infrastructure. In the following sections the impact of remoteness on the dimensions and factors, the categories as well as the impact on strategic recommendations will be discussed.
Section 3.1. Adaptations to the Dimensions
According to Nellore and Sderquist (2000), the rationale behind dimensions is experience-based. The dimensions as used in the Kraljic 1983 matrix are the profit impact and the supply risk. Poor logistics infrastructure will negatively influence lead times and therefore will increase the supply risk. It is clear, therefore, that an undeveloped logistics infrastructure should play a significant part in the Kraljic approach. However, the Kraljic approach does not explicitly deal with issues of logistics and infrastructure. The logistics covered by Kraljic does not deal with an undeveloped logistics infrastructure; it deals with normal practices with respect to the logistics infrastructure. However, in an undeveloped logistics infrastructure the supply risk is particularly influenced by remoteness factors. To have a clear view on the influence of the respective factors to the dimensions of the Kraljic matrix, two tables were generated with respectively factors used by Kraljic and factors that, according to the findings of the author, are specifically focused on remote environments. In table 3.1 the factors assigned by Kraljic to the two dimensions are listed. These factors are the same used in Kraljics (1983) article.
22 Dimensions Factors
Profit Impact Linked to commercial requirements The profit impact of a specific items can be defined by the following factors: - Volume purchased and expected growth in demand - Percentage of total purchase cost - Impact on product quality - Business growth
Supply Risk Linked to logistics issues The supply risk of a specific items can be defined by the following factors: - Market Conditions (Availability/scarcity) - Number of suppliers - Competitive demand - Make-or-buy opportunities - Storage risks - Substitution possibilities
Table: 3.1. Factors determining the dimensions of the Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, according to Kraljic (1983)
Based on the literature research and findings in section 2.4, the author thought it might make sense to make a match between the factors originally assigned by Kraljic (1983) and those applicable for remote environments. Dimensions Factors Source
Profit Impact Linked to commercial requirements The profit impact of a specific items can be defined by the following factors:
- Volume purchased and expected growth in demand - Percentage of total purchase cost - Impact on product quality - Business growth
Supply Risk Linked to logistics issues The supply risk of a specific items can be defined by the following factors:
- On Time delivery (lead times) Das and Handfield, 1997 - Cultural differences Das and Handfield, 1997 - Lack of Logistical knowledge Razzaque, 1997 Factors influencing the - Supply interruptions (strikes, hurricanes, etc) Svensson, 2000 Supply Risk in Remote - Duty and Custom Regulations Andersson and Norm, 2002 Environments - Shortage of qualified personnel Goonatilake, 1990 - Complicated import procedures Andersson and Norm, 2002 - Payment conditions Svensson, 2000 - Logistical related facilities (harbor, roads, warehouses, communications, etc) Das and Handfield, 1997
Table 3.2. Factors determining the dimensions of the Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, for Remote Environments Adapted by the author from Kraljic (1983) 23 In table 3.2 above the combined list with factors assigned originally by Kraljic and those applicable for remote environments is found. Although this combined list is not a comprehensive one, it might be noticed that there are quite a number of factors under remote conditions that influence the supply risk. These factors will definitely increase this supply risk for remote areas. Profit impact in this respect is practically the same in remote areas and areas with well-developed logistics, because the factors defining this dimension depend only on the business and economies of scale in which the company operates. With respect to this dimension, no others factors are found for specifically remote areas.
The answer to the second research question, Which adaptations to the dimensions of the Kraljic matrix are required, when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure? can be summarized as follows: profit impact is less depen- dent on the location of the business and, therefore, does not have to be adapted for remote locations, while for supply risk there are more defining factors than Kraljics considers, as illustrated in table 3.2. These additional factors do have an impact on the supply risk dimension as will be demon- strated in chapter 6.
Section 3.2. Adaptations to the Categories
The four item categories used by Kraljic are strategic, leverage, bottleneck and non-critical. Other authors such as Van Weele (1992), and Ellram and Olson (1997) who introduced similar models, use the same categories. As stated previously, Kraljic (1983) focused in his second matrix, see Appendix 2, on the strategic items, which are characterized by a high profit impact and a high supply risk. For the other categories a list was provided merely of main tasks, the required information and the advised decision level. Non-critical and leverage items, at the left side of the matrix, are the ones most influenced by the increased supply risk due to the remote conditions and, therefore, some of the leverage and some of the non-critical items will automatically shift to the right half of the Kraljic matrix and become respectively strategic and bottleneck items for buyers that have to deal with poor logistics. To answer the third research question, Which adaptations to the categories of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?, it must be concluded that no new categories to be 24 formulated for remote conditions, but merely a shift will need take place for some items from the non-critical and leverage categories to respectively the bottleneck and strategic categories.
Section 3.3. Impact on the strategic recommendations
Kraljics (1983) strategy recommendations were primarily meant for strategic items. A recent study by Gelderman and van Weele (2003), however, based on three in-depth case studies found that practitioners distinguish between several separate purchasing strategies for each portfolio quadrant. Some of these strategies focused on keeping the current position in the quadrant, while other strategies were directed towards moving to another position. The case studies revealed that, additionally to Kraljic's theory, experienced practitioners were very aware of the different choices within each quadrant. The strategies as outlined in section 2.2.2 are also applicable for remote areas, but as the supply risk in a remote environment is mainly influenced by the logistics, the company must therefore put more efforts in strategies that improve the logistics framework of the supplies. These strategies are to decrease the supply risk and will be useful for bottleneck and strategic items. As a result of the literature study it might be concluded that for remote areas primarily the logistics environment between buyer and supplier influences the strategies for buyer-supplier relationships.
Due to the increased supply risk for remote areas, which is especially associated to the logistics problems, this paper recommends the following two additional strategies for specifically bottleneck and strategic items for inclusion in Gelderman and van Weeles adaptation to Kraljics Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, see fig 3.1 (illustrated as strategy 10 & 11):
- Use of remote purchasing agents; Depending on the purchasing volume a strategy to consider is the use of a purchasing agent as intermediate between the remote supplier and buyer. As the purchasing agent will be responsible to supply a major part of buyers materials and supplies he will be forced to manage the flow of material from suppliers warehouses up to the suppliers export harbor or even up to buyers import harbor. As a purchasing agent he will also be responsible to monitor the processing time of the orders and will be able to secure payments to the supplier, packers, forwarders and third party logistics 1 , which will lead to a fast release of materials and therefore decrease the supply risk.
1 According to Knemeyer et al (2004), Third Party Logistics is the relationship between a shipper and a third party. 25 - Integrated logistics management system between buyer and supplier; A sophisticated integrated logistic management system at buyer and supplier or purchasing agent facility will give real- time information on material flow. Buyer can therefore take pro-active actions whenever any deviation on processing time might occur.
It is clear that besides these two strategies, the strategies as elaborated by Gelderman and Van Weele (2003) can also be used for such a remote environment. Likewise the strategies for a remote environment can also be used in an environment with a well-developed logistics infrastructure. However, the improvement of the supply risk will be much smaller than in a remote environment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 Maintain strategic partnership Accept the locked-in partnership T erminate partnership, find new supplier Develop a strategic partnership E xploit buying power (partner of convenience) Individual ordering, pursue E fficient processing P ooling of requirements R educe dependence and risk, F ind other solutions Accept the dependence, reduce the negative consequences Su p p l y Ri s k Low High L o w H i g h Pr o f i t Im p ac t St r at eg i c B o t t l en ec k No n -c r i t i c al L ev er ag e 10 & 11 Use remote purchasing agent Use logistics management system 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 Maintain strategic partnership Accept the locked-in partnership T erminate partnership, find new supplier Develop a strategic partnership E xploit buying power (partner of convenience) Individual ordering, pursue E fficient processing P ooling of requirements R educe dependence and risk, F ind other solutions Accept the dependence, reduce the negative consequences Su p p l y Ri s k Low High L o w H i g h Pr o f i t Im p ac t St r at eg i c B o t t l en ec k No n -c r i t i c al L ev er ag e 10 & 11 Use remote purchasing agent Use logistics management system
Fig 3.1. The Kraljic Purchasing Portfolio Matrix with Strategic Directions for all Categories, adapted for Remoteness Adapted from: Gelderman and Van Weele (2003)
It is suggested to call this matrix the Kraljic Remote Environment Matrix.
The identification of two additional strategies, namely the Use of remote purchasing agents, and implementing an Integrated logistics management system between buyer and supplier, give the 26 answer to the forth research question: Which adaptations to the strategic recommendations of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?
Section 3.4. Summary
In the present chapter the influence of remote conditions on the Kraljic purchasing portfolio matrix is outlined. Profit impact depends mainly on the scale on which the company operates, and therefore a remote area has no major impact on this dimension. Because of the complicated logistics involved for remote areas, supply risk for these areas is defined by more factors than Kraljic considered, compared to environments with well-developed logistics infrastructures, and therefore these remote areas are facing an increased supply risk. Remoteness has no impact on the existing four categories of the matrix, but with respect to the strategy recommendations for the category of strategic items, two strategies, focusing on improved logistics, have been added to the matrix. In the next chapter the methodology to fill in the matrix and define the strategic recommendations is discussed.
27 CHAPTER 4. PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS WITH THE KRALJIC MATRIX
Section 4.1. Methodology
In order to systematically fill in the matrix and to identify the strategic recommendations for a particular firm or industry, a five-step approach as outlined by Gelderman (2003) will be used. This five-step approach consists of five successive steps, main questions and issues that have to be addressed. 1. Preparation 2. Design and filling in the matrix 3. Interpretation of results 4. Strategic actions 5. Evaluation and Follow-up 1. Preparation 2. Design and filling in the matrix 3. Interpretation of results 4. Strategic actions 5. Evaluation and Follow-up
Fig. 4.1 A five-steps approach to portfolio analysis Source: Gelderman (2003)
Section 4.1.1. The Preparation
The complete process of the portfolio analysis is time consuming, therefore making it imperative to start adequate preparations. For reasons of support and implementation a cross-functional team is required, with representatives from all relevant departments and specialist fields. Considerable time and energy will have to be put in the preparation phase, getting the organization ready for action. Both the top management and the line management from the various departments of the organization will have to be convinced of the project. The first step requires the formation of a team and a clear description of its mission.
The preparation phase will be completed when the following questions are answered: 28 - What is the objective of the analysis? - What information is available and/or needed? - What are the limiting conditions in terms of time and money? - Who will participate in the team?
Section 4.1.2. Designing and filling in the matrix
The next step is designing and filing in the matrix. In designing the matrix the main issues are the level of aggregation, the selection of dimensions, variables, weights, and the method of measurement. In determining the level of aggregation there is a wide range of possibilities; these can vary from individual components to complete assemblies or even suppliers. The first option might result in positioning of thousands of components, which will lead to an unworkable situation. As a rule the grouping of items will be necessary, but should take place without unacceptable loss of information and relevance. Grouping too many items will lead to loss of information. The level of aggregation might be so high that the outcome of the analysis is far too general and therefore not useful anymore, so there must be a balance between level of aggregation and detail. Major or unique purchases should always be classified by commodity groups or type of purchase. If there are important individual items within a commodity group with significant other values on the two dimensions of the matrix, those should be taken out and analyzed separately. To conclude, there should be a balance between relevance and practicability when deciding on the level of aggregation.
The dimensions profit impact and supply risk can be interpreted in many different ways. Kraljic (1983) stated the following constituting factors: For profit impact: Purchase volume; percentage of total purchase value; impact on product quality; and impact on market growth.
For supply risk: Availability/scarcity of the product; number of available suppliers; substitution possibilities; risk of transport and storage; and possibilities to switch between make or buy
However, as recognized by Kraljic, these lists are not exhaustive, other factors could be relevant for both dimensions. In section 3.1 factors that determines the supply risk dimension for remote conditions are listed, these are: Lead times; cultural differences; lack of logistics knowledge; duty 29 and custom regulations; supply interruptions (hurricanes, strikes, etc.); shortage of qualified personnel; complicated import procedures; logistically related facilities.
To avoid misunderstanding and unproductive discussions at a later stage, the team has to come to an agreement on factors that constitute profit impact and supply risk. Consensus should be found, preferably within the project team, concerning the use of variables and the way these variables are measured. In measuring these variables there are three general accepted methods: - The consensus-based method; this is a trial and error method, requiring each variable to be discussed in the team until consensus is reached. - The one-by-one method; a method whereby just one key variable is selected per dimension. - The weighted factor score method; a well-known method and allows for a complete customized approach, when deciding on factors, weights, and scores.
Section 4.1.3. Interpretation of the results
Non-experienced portfolio users might under-estimate the interpretation of a filled-in matrix. This might be in a supposition that the strategic actions can be derived from the matrix in a rather deterministic way: if bottleneck, then strategy X. The positioning of items in the matrix is the starting point of the portfolio analysis, not the finishing point. The portfolio user should be focused on the position of the items and the consequences of these positions. Leading questions are can the found results be explained? and what do they actually mean? The team is likely to benefit from a critical comparison between prior, sometimes implicit, expectations and the actual found positions in the matrix. There might be some disturbing discoveries, challenging the team to develop a more profound understanding of the state of affaires. It might be revealed that, in contrast to prior beliefs, there are no leverage items at all, or that all strategic items are positioned at the extreme right side of the matrix, indicating that the company is facing extreme supply risk. The team should want to know reasons for such findings and should want to reflect on the gravity of the situation; what is acceptable and what is not? In addition, the team should take into account detailed information on the overall business strategy, the situation on the supply market, and the capacity and intentions of individual suppliers. The preceding considerations form the necessary input for the next step for the portfolio analysis.
30 Section 4.1.4. Defining strategic actions
The fourth step is dedicated to the selection of strategic responses to the position in the portfolio matrix for each of the products under consideration. One should always be aware of the fact that there are various options to consider for each product category in the matrix. The leading question is: Which improvements are desirable, necessary, and/or feasible? As a rough guideline one should recognize that there are strategies for holding a position and strategies for moving to another position. Obviously, changing positions will not always be possible. Whenever specific conditions are met, it might be possible to switch to other, more favorable matrix positions. In this study the most common switches within the matrix and the conditions that allow for these movements are identified.
Section 4.1.5. Evaluation and follow-up
The selected strategies should be translated into day-to-day actions. Without a specific action plan it is almost certain that nothing will happen, resulting in all the effort of the analysis being in vain. Obviously, defining the strategy is not the end of the five-step approach. In fulfilling these action plans the positions of these items in the matrix might change. The positions in a portfolio matrix are a reflection of the current situation, providing a snapshot in time. Purchasing practitioners will benefit most if they can compare the matrix with the matrix from a previous period. After a reasonable amount of time the positions of the items should be assessed again, allowing for control and additional intervention if needed. Shifts might require adjustments to the strategic actions
Section 4.2. Summary
To conclude, practitioners might benefit from Geldermans five-step approach to portfolio analysis, which is based on the observations and interviews during the study and the distinctive features are: - it identifies the sequence and the substance of the main activities - the approach is based on insights from experienced portfolio users - it recognizes different possibilities of designing the matrix and of handling measurement problems - it emphasizes that reflection on a (filled) matrix is more important than the matrix as such (the matrix is the starting point of the analysis, not the finishing point) 31 - it elaborates on the possibilities to formulate differentiated purchasing and supplier strategies, including a focus on moving items to better positions in the matrix, whenever the conditions for these strategies switches.
The next chapter describes the business context within which the study is carried out. 32
CHAPTER 5. BUSINESS CONTEXT
In order to test the adjusted Kraljic Remote Environments Matrix, as illustrated in figure 3.1, it was applied to a real business context, utilizing the Gelderman five-step portfolio analysis. The compa- ny chosen for this purpose was the State Oil Company, located in Suriname, a country that bears the remoteness characteristics defined in section 2.4.
Section 5.1. Company description
Staatsolie Maatschappij Suriname NV, State Oil Company of Suriname, was founded on December 13, 1980, as a company with limited liability under Surinamese Law with the right to explore and produce hydrocarbons in Suriname. The Republic of Suriname owns all shares. Initially, Staatsolie was merely meant to be an advisory body on behalf of the government, with the principal task of monitoring the activities of oil companies petroleum activities in Suriname. However, by taking the development of onshore discoveries into its own hands, an integrated petroleum company was created that now employs 640 people. The organizational structure of Staatsolie can be found in Appendix 3. With an estimated turnover for 2006 of more than two hundred and fifty million US dollars, Staatsolie is a sizeable generator of foreign currency in Suriname.
Staatsolies petroleum operations are concentrated on onshore Suriname. The companys crude production amounts to 13,000 barrels per day and its remaining recoverable reserves amount to 110 million barrels (MMBLS).
In August 1997, an oil refinery was put into operation with a processing capacity of 7,000 barrels per day, producing diesel oil, heavy vacuum gas oil, fuel oil, and asphalt bitumen. Most of the produced petroleum products find their way to the local market, while the surplus is exported to Caribbean markets. During the last two years, Staatsolie has also expanded into the ship bunkering business, and is now a noticeable provider of this service to both local and foreign customers.
In line with Staatsolies strategic objective the company has entered into the power generation market; a 15 MW power plant was put into operations in August 2006.
33 In December 2003, Staatsolies Tout Lui Faut Operations were ISO- certified and in February 2006 the whole company was ISO-certified. Staatsolie gives high priority to a healthy work environment through implementing procedures necessary to prevent accidents and protect the environment. An integrated HSE Policy steadily improves efficiency of occupational health and safety policies and monitors the environmental effects of Staatsolies operations. This policy not only applies to Staats- olies employees, but also to contractors and stakeholders.
Section 5.2. Purchasing Function within Staatsolie
The purchasing function of Staatsolie is centralized in the Procurement Division, see Appendix 4, which is responsible for the procurement of all goods and services for the company, and is divided in the following four departments: - Operational Goods; for the purchasing of goods for the operational activities - Operational Services; for the purchasing of all services for the operational activities - Projects; for the purchasing of goods and services for all project investments - Stores; for the management of inventory, warehouses and yards.
Some key figures of the purchasing function are listed in table 5.1. 6,700 Items on Stock 7,700 Purchasing orders processed 1000 Total number of suppliers - Number Local Suppliers 700 - Number Foreign Suppliers 300 US$ 117 mln Purchasing Value Goods & Services - Purchasing Value Goods US$ 63 mln - Purchasing Value Services US$ 54 mln US$ 200 mln Turnover of the Company 6,700 Items on Stock 7,700 Purchasing orders processed 1000 Total number of suppliers - Number Local Suppliers 700 - Number Foreign Suppliers 300 US$ 117 mln Purchasing Value Goods & Services - Purchasing Value Goods US$ 63 mln - Purchasing Value Services US$ 54 mln US$ 200 mln Turnover of the Company
Table 5.1 Key figures of the purchasing function at Staatsolie (2005)
Staatsolie has a Purchasing Policy and Procedures document (PPP). Purchasing of goods and services must be in compliance with this document. In the PPP are outlined the purchasing policy of 34 Staatsolie; conflict of interest situations; the responsibilities of the Procurement division and the relation with their suppliers; procedures for the purchasing of goods and services; and the authorization table. The Procurement Division processes annually about 8,000 purchase orders, using the software application Datastream 7i. Due to the specific field in which Staatsolie operates, more than 90% of the goods have to be procured from abroad. The goods ordered abroad are primarily from the United States, where Staatsolie has two purchasing agents to assist in the purchasing process. Without the purchasing agents it would have been a much more difficult to monitor the flow of the purchased goods from a remote distance. Staatsolie also faces limited schedules for ocean freight and airfreight from the USA to Suriname. Very often, due to limited amount of freight, there is no direct shipment to Suriname, but the freight is diverted to the island nation of Trinidad& Tobago where transshipment in smaller Suriname- bound vessels takes place. This has an impact on the lead-times and the inventory levels. Staatsolie also tries to anticipate the annual hurricane season in the Caribbean and North America, which tends to disrupt sea freight to Suriname, by increasing the inventory levels and by having materials for its investment program in house before the start of the season. Another aspect which the company faces is the frequency of labor strikes at customs. All of these variables result in higher supply risk for the company and requires much effort from the Procurement Division to meet the internal customers requirements for on-time delivery.
Section 5.3. Inventory Management
Staatsolies inventory database is managed in the same software application used for purchasing and the Maintenance Control Centre (MCC) of the company, namely Datastream 7i. At present the total number of parts held in stock at Staatsolie is 6.700, which have been organized into classes and groups, see table 5.2. There are three major groups of materials. 6 , 7 0 0 T o t a l P a r t s 3,800 41 71 Spare Parts 2,300 11 40 Suppl i es 600 01 10 Proj ect M ateri al s P a r t s C l a s s e s D e s c r i p t i o n 6 , 7 0 0 T o t a l P a r t s 3,800 41 71 Spare Parts 2,300 11 40 Suppl i es 600 01 10 Proj ect M ateri al s P a r t s C l a s s e s D e s c r i p t i o n
Table 5.2. Inventory Classes 35 Each of these major groups is discussed is detail. roject materials are materials used for investment projects, also called the Production Expansion upplies are consumables, such as electrical materials, gaskets, office supplies, safety items, pare Parts constitute the major portion of the inventory, consisting of many types of spare parts, ection 5.4. Summary business context of Staatsolies petroleum activities concentrated on
P Project materials Program (PEP). Materials for the PEP are not kept as regular stock items, but are bought based on the project schedules and are temporary kept in stock for the customer. The level of these stocks and their turnover depends on the amount of projects under execution and on how fast they are executed. There are about 600 different parts under this group, divided into 10 classes. Due to the nature of the project materials, most are custom-made; the lead times are therefore very long. For some of the engineered items the lead times are between four and six months. Staatsolie is the only company in Suriname that is operating in this field, so it is not possible at all to get materials for the Production Expansion Program from local sources.
S Supplies chemicals, lubricants, and all kind of filters. The turnover on supplies is normally higher than on spare parts. The supplies are divided into 30 classes, representing about 2,300 different supply items in the warehouse.
S Spare Parts from the smallest items to complete spare systems for refinery and drilling operations. There are a number of complete pumps that are kept as 'warehouse spares, which can be installed immediately should there be an emergency or failure involving an installed pump. At present there are a total of 3,800 different parts under this category and they are divided into 31 classes.
S This chapter describes the onshore Suriname. The activities of the company are in the field of crude oil exploration and exploitation, refining, and power generation. The purchasing function is centralized with a purchasing volume of US$ 117 mln in 2005. The company has an advanced procurement database in place to manage the complete purchasing process and their inventory database of approximately 6,700 items. Due to the remote environment of Staatsolie and the limited schedules for ocean 36 freight and airfreight to Suriname, Staatsolie is facing a higher supply risk for materials from abroad and is trying to minimize this supply risk by using purchasing agents and increasing the inventory levels. In the next chapter, the results will be presented of the application at Staatsolie of Kraljics purchasing portfolio matrix for remote environments. 37
CHAPTER 6. RESEARCH RESULTS
Section 6.1. Preparation
During the preparation phase a team was formed, which has a clear understanding of the objective of this research within the company. In this research the main objective was to investigate the application of the Kraljic purchasing portfolio matrix for remote areas and to validate the adjusted portfolio matrix within Staatsolie. This will be done according to the methodology as explained in chapter 4.
Some data used for this research is stored in the procurement database at Staatsolie. A period of three months was scheduled to do the research with a team consisting of the Procurement Manager, Procurement Administrator, Industrial Engineer, Procurement External Consultant, and for final consultation meetings were scheduled with the Production Operations Manager, the Engineering & Development Manager, and the Manager Technical Services.
Section 6.2. Designing and filling in the matrix
To fill in the matrix, the level of aggregation, the variables, their weight, and the method of measurement were defined.
Level of aggregation and detail In the existing database about 6,700 items are grouped in to approximately 70 classes, which have been set up to serve the internal customers of Staatsolie. Depending on their responsibility, the authorized customers are able to pick materials from the Stores from one or more classes. If, for instance, an internal customer is authorized to pick welding equipment & supplies from class 05 at the Stores (see Appendix 5), this customer will be able to pick any item from this class whether mechanical, electrical, or any other material related to this class. For this research, Staatsolies existing material classes were not useful because they focus on internal customers and are not classified according to commodity groups or suppliers. The first step was to regroup the classes and classify them according to commodity groups, with approximately the same supply risk, in which 38 materials can be ordered in a package and the focus on the buyer-suppliers relationship is maintained. The regrouping resulted in 30 commodity groups or classes of which a short list is illustrated in Appendix 6. The above-regrouped classes are stock items, but also materials relating to the annual production expansion program are considered, given that these materials represent a major part of the annual investments and therefore have the biggest annual profit impact for Staatsolie.
Due to the limited timeframe only 40 products and/or classes were selected for this research. To show both stock items as well as items from the annual production expansion program in the matrix, it was decided to take 20 items from the list of commodity groups with the highest turnover and 20 items from the production expansion program with highest profit impact. The commodity groups as illustrated in Appendix 6 each represent a very large amount of materials and were too many to investigate, so a second filter was applied to the selected 20 classes by taking 3 items per class with the highest turnover value.
To summarize, the following selection was applied: In Stock 6.700 line items 70 customer classes Sample to investigate 40 groups and items Regrouped in to 30 commodity groups Select 20 commodity groups with highest turnover value Select 3 items per commodity group with highest turnover value Annual Production Expansion Program 60 items Select 20 items with highest value L Kraljic Matrix B N S For Remote Environments
Fig 6.0. Selection Process
Four items in the selected commodity groups were separated from their class as these had a different supply risk or could not be ordered at a single supplier. The overall result is a list of 44 classes and/or items for investigation.
Determining the variables and their weight For both dimensions of the Kraljic matrix, profit impact and supply risk, the factors and their weight for the 44 selected classes/items needed to be determined. With respect to profit impact it was decided to take the purchase price of the items and project these in the matrix. The supply risk 39 under remote conditions, as summarized in section 3.4, impact all imported materials. Given that more than 90% of the materials are imported, the supply risk on these materials will have a higher weight than materials purchased on the local market. The factors used for supply risk for this research were the number of suppliers, on-time delivery, market conditions, and the availability of substitutes.
Filling in the matrix In order not to lose too much detail it was not possible for this research, to group too many items together. Per class a maximum of three items was grouped. In defining the groups it was necessary to know what materials could be ordered together and would also have approximately the same supply risk. Finally, some items were left ungrouped. The grouping resulted in a total of 44 classes and/or ungrouped items, which can be found in Appendix 7.
Finding the values on the profit impact axis was rather straightforward, since the purchased value was the only factor. All purchased value information was available in the procurement database. For ungrouped items the total value of annual consumption was plotted in the matrix and for the classes the sum of the respective items per class.
Determining the supply risk was much more time consuming, because there are many variables determining this dimension. The consensus-based method as described in section 4.2 was used; in accordance with this is a trial- and error method each class/item was discussed in the team until consensus was reached. For the factors number of suppliers, on-time delivery, and market conditions a Likert scale from 1 to 5 was used while for substitutes available the category Yes or No could be selected. With respect to number of suppliers the information available in the database was used. The factor on-time delivery could primarily also be found in the database, although for some items it was not so easy because not all required information was in the database. By means of this factor it was possible to determine whether or not the products were delivered according to the agreed delivery schedule. There were only three items boiler parts, airboats and wooden poles where the on-time delivery was very poor, which resulted in a score of 1. The factor market conditions gave a reflection of the actual market situation on the supply and demand of the items. If the supply was excellent and met any demand, the score for market conditions was VG or very good. In situations where the supply market did not meet the demand at all, the score was VB, meaning very poor. The last variable or factor for the supply risk dimension indicates whether or not a substitute is readily available for the product and could be used without any major 40 implication or adjustment on the operations. For each class or item the team members filled in his results and, based on the available data and outcomes, and after in-depth discussions, the team reached a common understanding per class or item. When Yes was selected for the factor substitutes available it was much easier to arrive to the final supply risk because the agreed average figure of the three Likert scales could be used as reference. If no substitutes are available the impact on the final supply risk depends on the respective values in the three Likert scales. If for instance there is only one supplier and there is no substitute available for the item, the final supply risk will be much higher than in the case where there are more suppliers with the same product on the market. All the positions were mutually agreed upon in the team.
Section 6.3. Interpretation of the results
After classification and discussion, the profit impact and supply risk for all collected items or classes was determined and filled in the matrix. Details of the items and the respective scores can be found in Appendix 7. The final supply risk in Appendix 7 had a scale ranging from very low to very high. Four items among the 44 selected had a medium supply risk and should be positioned on the middle vertical axis of the matrix but will give difficulties in defining the strategies. For these items, in case there is no substitute available, the position in the matrix is in the right section because of the increased supply risk. 0 500.000 1000.000 400.000 100.000 200.000 300.000 900.000 600.000 700.000 800.000 Leverage Products Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Non-critical Products
Figure 6.1. Staatsolies Purchasing Portfolio Matrix (Linear Scale) 41 The values on the profit impact dimension axis in fig. 6.1 above, are between a view hundred US$ and US$ 1.8 mln. Since only 3 items are reaching a value above the US$ 1.0 mln sign and most other items are far below, the range on the linear scale varied between 0 and 1 mln US$.
Some details on the items and/or classes could be found in on Appendix 8, figure A. Because there were so many low value items in the non-critical quadrant it was not possible to position the items with their respective product name or class on the right scale. In figure B, the second matrix on Appendix 8, which is the same as fig. 6.1, the product names have been left out and the products could be projected on the right position in the matrix.
Using a linear scale as in fig. 6.1 means that more than 85% of the items are positioned in the lower section of the matrix and does give a representative projection of the Staatsolies low a high profit impact. Plotting the results with the data of the profit impact dimension on a logarithmic scale gives a much better distribution of the items. On a logarithmic scale the limit for a low profit impact ends at US$ 100.000 which is a more acceptable value, since the company is using within the frame work of its ISO 9001:2000 certification a value above US$ 100.000 as medium to high impact on its operations. 100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products
With the logarithmic profit impact axis 24 items are positioned in the leverage and strategic quadrants and the other 20 items in the non-critical and bottleneck quadrants. The positions of the 42 items as illustrated in figure 6.2 give an indication of the actual situation of procuring materials at Staatsolie and the associated profit impact and supply risk. Keeping the objective of this research in mind and the Kraljic portfolio theory, focus was placed on the validation of the fourth research question Which adaptations to the strategic recommendations of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?
By observing the actual position of the products in the matrix in figure 6.3 it can be concluded that there are three clusters of items; The first cluster is found in the non-critical quadrant and consists of items with a low profit impact and very low supply risk. The supply risk here is very low, because of the large number of suppliers and/or alternative products. Without a good purchasing strategy, the high number of low value items can increase the purchasing cost of the company. 100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products
The second cluster is found in the leverage quadrant and consists of items with a high profit impact and a medium supply risk. Almost all items are positioned in the right section, implying that for most items in this section the company still faces certain problems with the supply, which is a result of the remote conditions in which the company operates. Special attention should be given to the logistics in this quadrant. Finally, the third cluster is found in the strategic quadrant and consists of items with medium to high profit impacts and an extreme supply risk.
43 Another way to read the matrix is to look at the total value of the items in each quadrant as illustrated in table 6.1. The strategic quadrant with 32% of the items represents the biggest profit impact, namely US$ 8,565,000 or 72% of the total profit impact of the matrix. Quadrant Items % % Bottleneck 3 7 68,000 0 Non-critical 17 38 544,000 5 Leverage 10 23 2,699,000 23 Strategic 14 32 8,565,000 72 Total 44 100 11,876,000 100 Profi t Impact ($)
Table 6.1: The actual profit impacts in the Kraljic quadrants
The conclusion is that the company is facing a very high supply risk with the biggest part of its profit depending on a limited amount of suppliers. The 14 items in the strategic quadrant can place the company in a difficult negotiating position if the companys strength is low compared to the suppliers strength. Especially when focusing on the field in which the company operates with an increase in demand on products related to the oil industry. As a relatively small company it is, therefore, necessary to decrease the number of strategic items and move to the leverage quadrant.
Section 6.4. Defining strategic directions
Karljic (1983) defined a set of generic strategies and Gelderman et al (2003) elaborated on these strategies arriving at a larger number of strategies, by taking into account the different specific conditions and circumstances. A distinction was made between strategies aimed at switching to another position and strategies aimed at staying in the same category. The first type of strategy is one of a more pro-active nature, while the second type is of a more re-active nature. Obviously, moving in the matrix is not always possible or desirable. In chapter 3, the author introduced the Kraljic Remote Environments Matrix as figure 3.1. This figure with the different purchasing strategies, including those formulated by the author for remote environments, is illustrated for the Staatsolie case as figure 6.4 in this chapter. In figure 6.4 the actual positions of the products are also plotted in the matrix. All the items in the respective quadrants can be assessed by these different strategies. In assessing the positions in the matrix and defining the strategic actions, attention should be paid to the sector in which in company operates, the oil sector, and the volatility of the market for some materials in this sector. 44 Reducing the supply risk will lead to a lower dependency on the supplier. Exceptionally, the leverage position is abandoned in search for a more strategic partnership with a supplier. This is only pursued if the supplier involved is willing and capable of contributing to the competitive advantage of the company and is only feasible for technologically advanced suppliers. When a partnership is not contributing, the company has to develop and contract another supplier, while bringing the relationship with the non-performing supplier to an end. The use of purchasing agents and/or an integrated logistics management system between buyer and supplier will improve the logistics constraints and will reduce the supply risk for all items to be imported directly by the company. This strategy is, therefore, not for a specific quadrant but applicable to all directly imported items in the matrix, although it will have the biggest impact on strategic and bottleneck items.
100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products Exploit Buying Power Reduce Purchasing costs Keep partnership if desirable Keep extra stock Long term contracts P o o l i n g Start Partnership Find new supplier(s) Find alternatives, change design Use Purchasing Agents Use Integrated logistics mngt System = Strategy to Improve position = Strategy when holding position Accept locked-in partnership
45 To improve the positions in the matrix the next assessment was done: - analyze the design or process to find out whether improving the position of bottleneck and strategic items is possible; - define the strategic purchasing actions when the items hold their position deliberately or when improvement is not possible; - analyze if non-critical products can be pooled; - determine if standardization can be applied, which could result in reducing the number of suppliers. - analyze the impact on the use of purchasing agents and/or an integrated logistics management system
A summary of the strategic recommendation for Staatsolie is found in appendix 10.
Strategic products
In the portfolio matrix 14 items are positioned in the strategic quadrant. In four cases reducing the supply risk is hardly possible and a strategic partnership can contribute to the competitive advantage. A single supplier delivers the drive heads and the lead-time is approximately six months. The tubing anchors are custom-made by only one supplier with a lead-time of three months, while the market conditions for chemicals is fair but supplied by only two suppliers. The logistics for these chemicals are very complicated, since due to strict customs regulation in the United States for chemicals, it is not always predictable what kind of delay can occur. It is therefore unavoidable to have a good logistics management system with the supplier in place to monitor the flow of this product. A close involvement of the purchasing agent in this process can also lead to a reduced supply risk. By qualifying other suppliers and/or changing some specifications, six items can move to the leverage quadrant. With respect to fill sand and shell sand the company already has started up a process to identify new suppliers and have a tender among them. It is expected that this will not only lead to a considerable reduction in the supply risk but it can also reduce the profit impact. For casings and tubing the company must consider changing to other, more common, dimensions. In the case of safety shoes, although substitutes are available, the company has standardized on a certain brand were the market conditions are bad. It is, therefore, required to change to another brand that will immediately lead to a reduced supply risk. In the actual situation the supply risk of safety shoes is slightly improved by the involvement of the purchasing agent. The market 46 conditions for the Amka cables are bad because of a high demand. These cables are procured from Europe with a very limited freight schedule to Suriname. Looking for other suppliers and/or alternatives can improve the position in the matrix considerable.
Leverage products
The leverage quadrant is the most favorable position in the matrix because of the number of suppliers and the good market conditions. The strategy is to bargain the best deal and switch between suppliers if a better deal can be achieved. The supply risk of most of the products in this quadrant can be improved by changing the specification of the products to meet the development in the industry.
Non-Critical Products
The main strategy for non-critical products is to pool and to standardize. Some items can be pooled and placed in supply agreements to improve the efficiency of the purchasing process. Where possible the company must consider modifying the specifications to meet specific standards and increasing the buying volume and improving the purchasing power. Another strategy to decrease the purchasing cost is to use a Low Value order process and then increase the stock level for products that have to be imported.
Bottleneck products
Bottleneck items cause numerous problems and risks. For the bottleneck products with a very low profit impact, the stock levels should be increased; this could be the case for nitrogen and boiler parts. If possible, the items should be moved to the non-critical quadrant where the supply risk is much lower. If there are products in the top section of this quadrant, it is advisable to have an agreement with the supplier to secure deliveries.
47 When the above-mentioned strategies are applied the improved matrix will be as illustrated in figure 6.5, with a higher concentration of items in the leverage quadrant.
100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products
The profit impact in the respective quadrants of the improved matrix will be as follows: Quadrant Items % % Bottleneck 2 5 44,000 0 Non-critical 15 34 380,000 3 Leverage 20 45 9,052,000 77 Strategic 7 16 2,400,000 20 Total 44 100 11,876,000 100 Profi t Impact ($)
Table 6.2. The profit impact in the improved matrix
Because of the high number and value of items in the leverage quadrant, the company will have a much better negotiating position against the supplier. About 77% of its profit impact can be tendered among selected suppliers that will, among others, result in competitive prices and better delivery conditions.
48
Section 6.5. Summary
In this chapter the purchasing portfolio analysis was carried out for a total of 44 items and/or classes. The positioning of items in the Kraljic matrix for remote environments resulted in three major clusters in respectively the non-critical, the leverage, and the strategic quadrant.
In the current situation Staatsolie is facing an extreme supply risk with a substantial part of its strategic materials. By applying differentiated purchasing strategies Staatsolie can reduce the supply risk for some important items and improve its negotiating position against the suppliers. Implementing the two remote purchasing strategies will reduce the supply risk for almost all materials directly imported by Staatsolie.
Comparing the current portfolio with the improved purchasing portfolio matrix for remote areas, the following improvements are identified: - Reduction of the material classes by pooling - Reduced number of bottleneck items from 3 to 2 and secured delivery of these bottleneck items - Reduced number of strategic items from 14 to 7 and partnerships for these items - Increased value in the leverage quadrant from 23% to 77% of the total purchase value.
The increased value of the leverage quadrant from 23% to 77% of the total purchase value, results in more buying power for Staatsolie. With more buying power better agreements can be made, resulting in overall reduced costs. Also, the reduced number of suppliers by pooling and standardization of non-critical items leads to a more efficient purchasing process.
The reposition of bottleneck and strategic items by reducing the supply risk leads to less dependency. The number of items with a high supply risk will be reduced from 17 to 9. For the remaining items the risk should be covered by strategic partnerships, contracts securing delivery and extra stock.
49
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7.1. Conclusions
Purchasing portfolio models, including Kraljics, have been developed from the point of view of a well-developed industrialized logistics infrastructure. Many countries, especially less developed countries, are facing an undeveloped logistics infrastructure that has a major negative impact on their supply risk. To investigate the use of the Kraljic matrix in an undeveloped logistics infrastruc- ture, the following problem statement was formulated How may Kraljics purchasing portfolio model be used under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?. This case study at Staatsolie reveals some new insights in the use of the purchasing portfolio approach for remote areas in an undeveloped logistics infrastructure.
The first research question, Which characteristics of remoteness should be considered when adapting the Kraljic model for use in remote areas?, revealed that remote areas primarily are facing major logistics constraints that have an impact on the supply risk.
The second research question, Which adaptations to the dimensions of the Kraljic matrix are required, when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?, has resulted in additional factors for the supply risk dimension. In remote areas the following factors have an impact on the supply risk dimension: on- time delivery, cultural differences, lack of logistical knowledge, supply interruptions due to strikes and hurricanes, duty and custom regulations, payment conditions, and logistically related facilities. With respect to the profit impact no adaptations are needed for remote environments, since this dimension is hardly influenced in these environments.
The research to the third research question, Which adaptations to the categories of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?, has not led to any new categories for remote areas. Thus, the same categories are used for remote areas.
50 Two additional strategies have been formulated for remote environments, in particular, the use of purchasing agents and the use of an integrated logistics management system between buyer and supplier. By means of these new strategies the forth research question, Which adaptations to the strategic recommendations of the Kraljic matrix are required when using the Kraljic approach under conditions of remote suppliers and an undeveloped logistics infrastructure?, was answered.
Implementing the differentiated purchasing strategies for remote environments for Staatsolie will significantly improve its purchasing portfolio. The following improvements can be achieved: - For some bottleneck items a design change can decrease the supply risk of the items. - The pooling of non-critical items and the use of supply agreements will reduce the number of suppliers and the purchasing costs. - By implementing the desired strategies for the strategic items, some of these items will shift from the strategic to the leverage quadrant, which will improve Staatsolies negotiating position, will reduce the supply risk and the dependency on suppliers. - An increased volume of items in the leverage quadrant will result in more buying power for Staatsolie. With more buying power better agreements can be made, resulting in a lower cost price. - The reduced supply risk will protect Staatsolie against disastrous supply interruptions and unplanned shutdowns of its operations. - Because of the improved negotiating position, especially for the items moved towards the leverage quadrant, Staatsolie may reduce the purchasing costs and can have competitive bids that will finally reduce its profit impact.
Not only Staatsolie but also other companies in Suriname and in other remote environments can benefit from the results of this study by implementing the purchasing strategies as formulated in the Kraljic Matrix for Remote Environments.
The analysis of the purchasing portfolio and the positions of the items in the matrix as well as the implementation of the strategic actions is a continuous process to be re-evaluated periodically. 51
Section 7.2. Recommendations
This study has revealed that the supply risk dimension of Kraljics purchasing portfolio matrix needs some adaptation when used in remote environments. Two additional strategies were formulated to use the matrix in remote environments.
The use of the adapted matrix the Kraljic Remote Environments Matrix - seems to be a very useful tool for companies operating in an environment with an undeveloped logistics infrastructure, it is therefore recommended to position the other classes and products of Staatsolie in the adapted matrix. This will give Staatsolie enough tools to adapt differentiated purchasing strategies, especially the two strategies for remote environments, and allow Staatsolie to improve its position against the suppliers that will reduce the supply risk.
In order to gain deeper understanding on this topic it is also recommended to expand the research on logistics management in remote environments, because, compared to advanced nations there is a big lack on literature for those environments. The results from the expanded research can be used to better define the supply risk for the remote environments and the impact on the Kraljic matrix. 52 APPENDIX 1: Stages of Purchasing Sophistication, Kraljic 1983
Typical Sources Global, predominantly new suppliers with new technology Mainly specialized materials
Supply Production-based scarcity
Decision Authority Decentralized but centrally coordinated
Low
High
Complexity of supply market
Criteria: Supply monopoly or oligopoly conditions, pace of technological advance, entry barriers, logistics costs and complexity, etc.
53 APPENDIX 2: The Purchasing Portfolio Matrix, Kraljic 1983
EXHIBIT IV The Purchasing Portfolio Matrix
Company strength
Low Medium High Supply market strength
Exploit
Balance
Diversify
54 APPENDIX 3: Organization Structure Staatsolie
HEALTH, SAFETY ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS QUALITY CORPORATE PLANNING HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT E & P CONTRACTS EXPLORATION & FIELD EVALUATION PRODUCTION TECHNICAL SERVICES DIRECTORATE EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION REFINERY OPERATIONS MARKETING ENGINEERING & DRILLING DIRECTORATE REFINING & MARKETING CONTROLLING FINANCE ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT TREASURY DIRECTORATE FINANCE MANAGING DIRECTOR
EXPEDITOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT II PLANNING & CONTROL OFFICER BUYER PURCHASING ASSISTANT I PURCHASING ASSISTANT II OPERATIONAL GOODS PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATOR STORES ASSISTANT I STORES ASSISTANT II STORES CLERK STORES SUPERVISOR Saramacca Opeartions STORES ASSISTANT I STORES ASSISTANT II STORES SUPERVISOR TLF Operations STORES PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATOR PURCHASING ASSISTANT I PURCHASING ASSISTANT II PROJ ECTS PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATOR PURCHASING ASSISTANT I PURCHASING ASSISTANT II OPERATIONAL SERVICES PROCUREMENT ADMINISTRATOR PROCUREMENT MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR
STAATSOLIE, HRM: 24 NOVEMBER 2005
56 APPENDIX 5: Customer Classes for Materials
St ock nr. Short descri pt i on Cl ass 01 Inf rast ruct ure 15424 Sand, Shell 15423 Sand, fill-up Cl ass 02 Wel l mat eri al s 18473 Screen duragrip tell tale 5130 Tubinghead Huber HFCS for 2-3/8" tubing 80067 Calcium chloride bags/50 lbs 15496 Potassium chloride bags/50lbs 80158 Pipe 3-1/2" coated Cl ass 04 El ect ri cal mat eri al s 10024 Isolator Bell 13.2KV 10238 Cable Power Overhead (Azusa), on reels of 12000Ft 12758 Steunen gebogen HS 12.4 kV 16712 Anchor screw triple helic 80075 Cable AMKA T 3x70+50 U/L per meter 12015 Bolt with nut M12x30mm electrolytically galvanized Cl ass 05 Wel l equi pment & suppl i es 15061 BOP Huber 2-1/2" 15494 Motor electric 10 HP 460V, 3ph. TEFC 17210 Stator kit Moyno 20N095 18538 PUP SUB 2-7/8" x 4" 5254 Pony Rod 3/4x6 Cl ass 14 Pai nt & pai nt suppl i es 17462 Paint finish industrial green 3441 Thinner multipurpose 3461 Brush paint flat 3" 9090 Paint primer red metal Cl ass 16 Pi pe const ruct i on 16815 Pipe black, 1-1/4" 5286 Pipe black 3/4" sch 40 5304 Pipe galvanized 2" 8254 Pipe 1-1/4" Cl ass 53 El ect ri c power equi pment 10787 Fuse time delay 12363 Cable VMVK 4x10 15416 Relay overload 3 phase 9-18A 18306 Wooden Poles 80250 Filter fuel element Cl ass 60 Engi nes Cat erpi l l ar 10813 Filter element oil p/n 1R0714 10861 Starter 24V 11473 Indicator oil pressure 15572 Oil gas engine Caterpillar 15589 Pump water remanufactured Cl ass 71 Int er-changeabl e suppl i es 10034 Bearing roller 16038 Filter hydraulic 17102 Bearing main 9240 Bearing ball SKF 6209 57
APPENDIX 6: Commodity Groups (short list)
AU - Automotive GA - Gases industrial PT - Piping Tools BR - Bearings GS - Gasketing PU - Pumps and parts CS - Chemicals HT - Heaters S&F - Steam & Fluid control DCS - Process computer TLF IN - Instrumentation SA - Safety & Sanitary DR - Drilling parts LA - Laboratory suppl & chem. SC - Steel structural DT - Drilling tools LU - Lubrication ST - Small tools and supplies EL - Electrical OF - Office supplies TE - Telecommunication EX - Excavators PA - Paint WL - Welding FA - Fasteners PI - Piping WS - Well supplies FE - Filters lube oil PS - Piping Supplies WM - Well materials Descripti on Class Coolant radiator AU Injector assy AU Filter fuel Vamar 20911 AU Battery 100 AH maintenance free AU Bearing ball SKF-6309-2ZC3 BR Bearing cylindrical SKF-NU2212C3 BR Bearing angular contact SKF7207 BEP BR Ultrion Nalco 8157 CS Demulsifier Champion J XZ-1814 CS Diesel ignition improver Naltene EC5308A CS Conn. Anit for DSA1 130 DSTN N001 DCS Shaft Kelly Drum DR Extension piston rod DR Valve hydraulic DR Slip driall collar 4-3/4" DT Compound thread pipedope DT Blade Underreamer Drag type 4-3/4" OD Body x 2-7/8" API DT Motor electric 10 HP 460V, 3ph. TEFC EL Cable AMKA-T 3x70+50 U/L per meter EL Mast bruinhart 9 & 12 M EL Filter Oil FE Filter fuel element FE Filter oil FE Filter element oil p/n 1R0714 FE Gas Acetylene 250 Ft/cyl GA Gas Oxygen 220 Ft/cyl GA Gas nitrogen 98% purity GA Gasket graphite 3/4" -150#1/16" Thick GS Gasket sheet 1/8" x 60" x 60" GS Sampl e Li st 58 APPENDIX 7: Material Classes and Products for Supply Risk
A B Substitutes available VB B F G VG VB B F G VG VB B F G VG VL L M H VH 1 Piping Tools 1 5 5 5 Y 2 Small Tools 2 5 5 5 Y 3 Nitrogene Gas 4 1 4 4 N 4 Gaskets 5 5 5 5 Y 5 Filters lube oil 8 5 5 5 Y 6 Automotive parts 8 5 5 5 Y 7 Gases industrial 9 3 5 4 N 8 Steam control 9 5 4 5 Y 9 Bearings 15 5 5 5 Y 10 Instrumentation 18 2 3 4 Y 11 Calcium Chloride 19 3 4 5 N 12 Boiler parts 24 1 1 3 N 13 Heater parts 40 1 3 2 N 14 Electrical supplies, local 41 3 5 5 Y 15 Lab supplies 51 5 5 4 Y 16 Paint 68 5 5 5 Y 17 Piping Supplies 71 5 5 5 Y 18 Distribution Pumps 72 4 3 4 N 19 Sanitary 72 2 5 5 Y 20 Lubrication 75 3 5 5 Y 21 Office supplies 105 5 5 5 Y 22 Airboats 117 2 1 2 N 23 Potassium chloride 122 3 4 5 N 24 Drilling tools 122 3 5 5 Y 25 Safety Coveralls 143 5 2 4 Y 26 Bentonite 160 3 5 5 N 27 Amka Cables 161 2 2 2 N 28 Wooden Poles 180 4 1 2 N 29 Safety Shoes 205 1 2 2 Y 30 Electrical supplies, import 241 3 4 3 Y 31 Drilling Rig parts 246 1 2 2 N 32 Down hole pumps 251 1 2 2 N 33 Tubing anchors 283 1 3 2 N 34 Sucker rod 3/4" 311 5 3 4 N 35 Pipe 10-3/4" OD coated 394 5 3 3 Y 36 Packer set 2 3/8" 398 1 5 1 N 37 Pipe 3-1/2" OD coated 471 5 4 3 Y 38 Chemicals treatment plant 484 2 4 3 N 39 Drive heads 621 1 3 1 N 40 Pipe 6-5/8" OD coated 630 5 4 3 Y 41 Tubing 2-3/8" length 32' 642 5 3 2 N 42 Casing 5-1/2" length 42' 1,378 5 3 2 N 43 Zand, shell 1,767 1 5 1 N 44 Zand, fill 1,832 1 5 5 N Total 'profit impact value' 11,876 VB =Very Bad VL =Very Low Y =Yes B =Bad L =Low N =No F =Fair M =Medium G =Good H =High VG =Very Good VH =Very High C D Description Profi t Impact x 1000 US$ Suppl y Ri sk Factors Supply Risk (Final) Number of Suppliers On Time delivery Market conditions 59 APPENDIX 8: Staatsolies Purchasing Portfolio Matrix (Linear Scale)
0 500.000 Piping tools Piping tools Chemicals treatment plant Chemicals treatment plant Bearings Bearings Lab Supplies Lab Supplies Small tools Small tools Sand, fill Sand, fill Filters lub oil Filters lub oil Potassium chloride Potassium chloride Heater parts Heater parts Tubing 2-3/8" Tubing 2-3/8" Paint Paint Casing 5-1/2" Casing 5-1/2" Electrical local Electrical local Nitrogen Gas Nitrogen Gas Drilling tools Drilling tools Office supplies Office supplies Gaskets Gaskets Piping Supplies Piping Supplies Automotive Automotive Industrial Gasses Industrial Gasses Sanitary Sanitary Safety Coveralls Safety Coveralls Safety shoes Safety shoes Lubrication Lubrication Drive heads Drive heads Packer set Packer set Wooden Poles Wooden Poles AmkaCables AmkaCables Airboats Airboats Tubing anchors Tubing anchors Sand, shell Sand, shell Down hole Pumps Down hole Pumps Drilling Rig parts Drilling Rig parts Instrumentation Instrumentation Steam Control Steam Control 1000.000 Leverage Products Non-critical Products Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Sucker Rods Sucker Rods Electrical import Electrical import Calcium Chloride Calcium Chloride Bentonite Bentonite Distribution Pumps Distribution Pumps Pipe 3-1/2" coated Pipe 3-1/2" coated Boiler parts Boiler parts
Fig. A. Linear scale with product or class names (position non-critical items for product information only)
0 500.000 1000.000 400.000 100.000 200.000 300.000 900.000 600.000 700.000 800.000 Leverage Products Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Non-critical Products
Fig. B. Linear scale without product or class names
100.000 Heater parts Heater parts Tubing 2-3/8" Tubing 2-3/8" Casing 5-1/2" Casing 5-1/2" Nitrogen Gas Nitrogen Gas Safety shoes Safety shoes Drive heads Drive heads Packer set Packer set Wooden Poles Wooden Poles AmkaCables AmkaCables Airboats Airboats Tubing anchors Tubing anchors Sand, shell Sand, shell Down hole Pumps Down hole Pumps Drilling Rig parts Drilling Rig parts 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Bearings Bearings Lab Supplies Lab Supplies Small tools Small tools Filters lub oil Filters lub oil Potassium chloride Potassium chloride Paint Paint Electrical local Electrical local Drilling tools Drilling tools Office supplies Office supplies Gaskets Gaskets Piping Supplies Piping Supplies Automotive Automotive Industrial Gasses Industrial Gasses Sanitary Sanitary Safety Coveralls Safety Coveralls Instrumentation Instrumentation Steam Control Steam Control Leverage Products Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Sucker Rods Sucker Rods Electrical import Electrical import Bentonite Bentonite Distribution Pumps Distribution Pumps Piping tools Piping tools Calcium Chloride Calcium Chloride Non-critical Products Lubrication Lubrication Sand, fill Sand, fill Pipe 3-1/2" coated Pipe 3-1/2" coated Boiler parts Boiler parts Chemicals treatment plant Chemicals treatment plant
Fig. A. Logarithmic scale with product names
100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products
Fig. B. Logarithmic scale without product names 61
APPENDIX 10: Strategic Recommendation for Staatsolie Purchasing Portfolio Purchasing Strategy Improvement of position New When holding position Action to be taken Position Heater parts Increase stock level B Boiler parts Re-design boiler tubes to meet American standards N Nitrogene Gas Increase stock level B Lubrication Use Supply Agreement Pool via lubricant supplier L Sanitary Use Supply Agreement Pool via sanitary supplier L Piping Supplies Pool with 'piping tools' N Electrical local Use Supply Agreement Pool via local electrical supplier L Paint Use Supply Agreement N Lab supplies No improvements possible N Bearings Use Supply Agreement Better N Distribution pumps No improvements possible N Filters lub oil No improvements possible N Industrial gasses Use Supply Agreement Better N Small tools No improvements possible N Automotive Pool with 'filters lub oil' N Gaskets No improvements possible N Piping tools Pool with 'piping supplies' N Calcium Chloride No improvements possible N Instrumentation No improvements possible N Steam control No improvements possible N Pipe 6-5/8" OD coated Change design and use HDPE Better L Pipe 3-1/2" OD coated Change design and use HDPE Better L Pipe 10-3/4" OD coated Change design and use HDPE Better L Sucker rod 3/4" Change to 7/8" standard Better L Electrical supplies, import No improvements possible L Bentonite Use Supply Agreement at Purchasing agent Better L Safety Coveralls Look for local suppliers and tender Better L Drilling tools Look for more suppliers Better L Potassium chloride No improvements possible L Office supplies Use Supply Agreement L Sand, fill Qualify other suppliers and tender L Sand, shell Qualify other suppliers and tender L Casing 5-1/2" Change to 7" standard Casings L Tubing 2-3/8" Change to 2-7/8" standard L Drive heads Contract supplier to guanrantee delivery. Look for strategic partnership. S Chemicals treatment plant Contract supplier to guanrantee delivery. Look for strategic partnership. Intergated logistics management system between buyer and supplier Better S Packer set 2 3/8" Contract supplier to guanrantee delivery. Look for strategic partnership Possibility to change to HDPE S Tubing anchors Contract supplier to guanrantee delivery. Look for strategic partnership S Down hole pumps Change to other standard Better S Drilling Rig parts Alternative available but expensive to modify design S Safety Shoes Look for other safety shoes that meet safety requirments L Wooden Poles Qualify other suppliers and tender L Amka Cables Look for alternative cables and suppliers L Airboats Contract supplier to guanrantee delivery. Look for strategic partnership Better S B =Bottleneck; N =Non-critical; L =Leverage; S =Strategic Quadrant Strategic products Bottleneck products Non-critical products Leverage products 62 APPENDIX 11: Staatsolies Improved Purchasing Portfolio Matrix
Fig. A. Staatsolies Improved Matrix with product names 100.000 Chemicals treatment plant Chemicals treatment plant Heater parts Heater parts Tubing 2-3/8" Tubing 2-3/8" Casing 5-1/2" Casing 5-1/2" Nitrogen Gas Nitrogen Gas Safety shoes Safety shoes Drive heads Drive heads Packer set Packer set Wooden Poles Wooden Poles AmkaCables AmkaCables Airboats Airboats Tubing anchors Tubing anchors Sand, shell Sand, shell Down hole Pumps Down hole Pumps Drilling Rig parts Drilling Rig parts 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Bearings Bearings Lab Supplies Lab Supplies Small tools Small tools Filters lub oil Filters lub oil Potassium chloride Potassium chloride Paint Paint Electrical local Electrical local Drilling tools Drilling tools Office supplies Office supplies Gaskets Gaskets Piping Supplies Piping Supplies Automotive Automotive Industrial Gasses Industrial Gasses Sanitary Sanitary Safety Coveralls Safety Coveralls Instrumentation Instrumentation Steam Control Steam Control Leverage Products Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 6-5/8" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Pipe 10-3/4" coated Sucker Rods Sucker Rods Electrical import Electrical import Bentonite Bentonite Distribution Pumps Distribution Pumps Piping tools Piping tools Calcium Chloride Calcium Chloride Non-critical Products Lubrication Lubrication Sand, fill Sand, fill Pipe 3-1/2" coated Pipe 3-1/2" coated Boiler parts Boiler parts
Fig. B. Staatsolies Improved Matrix without product names
100.000 1000.000 56.000 30.000 18.000 10.000 560.000 300.000 180.000 Strategic Products Bottleneck Products P r o f i t
I m p a c t
i n
U S $ Supply Risk Low High Leverage Products Non-critical Products
63
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Andersson, D. and A. Norrman (2002),Procurement of Logistics Services A Minute Work or a Multi-Year Project? European J ournal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 8, 3-14.
Babbar, S. and S. Prasad (1998), International Purchasing, Inventory Management and Logistics Research, International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 28, No. 6, 403-433.
Bartelse, D.L. (2000), Het inkopen van grondstoffen, Handboek Internationaal Inkopen, B1300-1 B1300 20.
Bartezzaghi, E. and S. Ronchi (2004), A Portfolio Approach in the E-Purchasing of Materials, J ournal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 10, 117-126.
Bauer, F. (1977),Better Purchasing: High Rewards and Low Risks The Mac Kinsey Quarterly, Winter, 75-86.
Bensaou, M. (1999), Portfolio of Buyer-Supplier Relationships, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 4, Summer, 35-44.
Burt, D.N. (1989), Managing Suppliers Up to Speed, Harvard Business Review, J uly-August, 127-135.
Caddick, J .R. and B.G. Dale (1987), Sourcing from less developed countries: a case study, J ournal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 23, No. 3,17-23.
Canils, M.C.J . and C.J . Gelderman (2005), Purchasing Strategies in the Kraljic Matrix A Power and Dependence Perspective, J ournal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 11, 141-155.
Carter, J .R. (1997), Supply positioning at SGX Corporation, Best Practices in Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, December, 5-8.
64 Chandani, Y. and K.T. McGregor (2000), The Supply Chain in Developing Countries: Strategies for Transformation and Performance Measurement, Poster Presentation at the 9 th International IPSERA Conference, London, Canada, 475-483.
Child J . and D. Faulkner (1998), Strategies of Co-operation: Managing Alliances, Networks, and J oint Ventures, Oxford University Press, New York.
Coat, M.B. (1983),Pitfalls in Portfolio Planning Long Range Planning, Vol. 16, No.3, 47-56.
Cook M. (1989), Managing logistics in remote locations: a case study, International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 19, No. 10, 34-40.
Cox, A. (1997), Business Success a way of thinking about strategic, critical supply chain assets and operational best practice, Earlsgate Press, Great Britain.
Das, A and R.B. Handfield (1997), J ust-in-time and logistics in global sourcing: an empirical study, International J ournal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27, No. 3/4, 244-259.
De Boer, L. (1997), Het Inkoop portfoliomodel van Kraljic nader beschouwd, Praktijkboek Professioneel Inkoopmanagement, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie Deventer, 2.9.B.1.01 - 2.9.B.1.10 (Dutch text).
De Boer, L. and C.J . Gelderman (2001), Stappenplan voor de toepassing van de Kraljic Inkoopportfolio analyse, Handboek Inkoopmanagement: Stappenplan, checklisten en modellen, Samson, Alphen aan de Rijn, SE 2.1, 1-25 (Dutch text).
De Castro, L.M. and J . Mota (2005), Relationship Portfolios and Capability Development: Cases from the Mould Industry, J ournal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 11, 42-54
De Vaan, M.J .M. (2005), Logistiek voor Managers, Supply Chain Management als Succesfactor, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie Deventer.
65 Dobler, D.W. and D.N. Burt (1996), Purchasing and Supply Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 6 th ed.
Dubois, A. and A.C. Pederson (2002), Why Relationships do not fit into Purchasing Portfolio Models A Comparison Between the Portfolio and Industrial Network Approaches, European J ournal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 8, No.1, 35-42.
Elliott-Shircore, T.I. and P.T. Steele (1985), Procurement Positioning Overview, Purchasing and Supply Management, December, 23/26.
Ellram, L.M. and R.F. Olson (1997), A Portfolio Approach to Supplier Relationships, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26,101-113.
Evans, J .R. and B.J . Hadeler (1994), Supply Strategy: Capturing the Value, Industrial Manage- ment, Vol. 36. No. 4, J uly/August, 3-4.
Fawcett S.E. (2000), The Supply Management Environment Supply Managements Role Today and in the Future, Institute for Supply Management, Tempe, USA.
Fawcett S.E. and M.B. Myers (1996), Operating in the Caribbean: A Logistics Perspective International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 26, No. 9, 20-35.
Gelderman, C.J . (2000), Rethinking Kraljic: Towards a Purchasing Portfolio Model, Based on Mutual Buyer-Supplier Dependence, Danish Purchasing & Logistics Forum, Vol. 37, No. 10, October, 9-15.
Gelderman, C.J . and A.J . van Weele (2002), Strategic Direction Through Purchasing Portfolio Management: A Case Study, International J ournal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38, No 2, Spring, 30-37.
Gelderman, C.J . (2003), A Portfolio Approach to the Development of Differentiated Purchasing Strategies, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven.
66 Gelderman, C.J . and A.J . van Weele (2003), Handling Measurement Issues and Strategic Directions in Kraljics Purchasing Portfolio Model Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 9, 207-216.
Gelderman, C.J . (2005), De inkoopportfolio verbetert de inkoopprestaties, Handboek Internationaal Inkopen, Factomedia.
Gelderman, C.J . and A.J . van Weele (2005), Purchasing Portfolio Models: A Critique and Update, J ournal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41, No 3, J une.
Goonatilake, L. (1990), Inventory management in the manufacturing sector in developing countries, Engineering costs and production economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, 19-24.
Gritzmacher, K.J . and J .N. Pearson (1990), Integrating Purchasing into Strategic Management. Long Range Planning, Vol. 23, No. 3, 91-99.
Hartmann, E., Th. Ritter and H.G. Gemden (2002), Determining the Purchase situation: Cornerstone of Supplier Relationship Management, The 17 th Annual IMP Conference, Oslo, Norway, 1 29.
Homburg, Chr. (1995), Single Sourcing, Double Sourcing, Multiple Sourcing?, Zeitschrift fr Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 65, No. 8, 813-834 (German text).
J ohnson, J .L. and S.M. Wagner (2004), Configuring and Managing Strategic Supplier Portfolios, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, 717-730.
Kamann, D.J .F. (2000), Kraljic krijgt extra dimensie, Tijdschrift voor Inkoop & Logistiek, Vol. 16, April, No. 4, 8-12 (Dutch Text).
Kempeners, M. and A.J . van Weele (1997), Inkoopportfolio: basis voor inkoop- en marketingstrategie, F&G Publishing, Bunnik (Dutch text)
67 Knemeyer, A.M. and P.R. Murphy (2004), Evaluating the Performance of Third Party Logistics Arrangements: A Relationship Marketing Perspective, J ournal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40, No 1, 35-48.
Kraljic, P. (1983), Purchasing Must Become Supply Management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61, No.5, September-October, 109-117.
Lilliecreutz, J . and L. Ydreskog (1999), Supplier Classification as an Enabler for a Differentiated Purchasing Strategy, Global Purchasing & Supply Management, November, 66-74.
Nellore, R. and K. Sderquist (2000), Portfolio Approaches to Procurement Analysing the Missing Link to Specifications, Long Range Planning, Vol. 33, No.2, 245-267.
Ramsay, J . (1996),The Case Against Purchasing Partnerships, International J ournal of Purchasing and Material Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, Fall, 13-19.
Razzaque, M. (1997), Challenges to logistics development: the case of a Third World Country; Bangladesh International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, 18-38.
Steel, P.T. and B.H. Court (1996), Profitable Purchasing Strategies: A Managers Guide for Improving Organizational Competitiveness through skills of Purchasing, McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.
Svensson, G. (2000), A conceptual framework for the analysis of vulnerability in supply chains, International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 30, No. 9, 731-749.
Syson, R. (1992), Improve Purchase Performance, Pitman Publishing, London.
Turabian, K.L. (1996), A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 6 th ed. 68
Trent, R.J . and R.Monczka (1998), Purchasing and Supply Management: Trends and Changes Throughout the 1990s,International J ournal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34, No. 4, Fall, 2-11.
Turnbull, P.W. (1990),A Review of Portfolio Planning Models for Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Management, European J ournal of Marketing, Vol. 24, 7-22.
Van Weele, A.J . (1988, 1992, 2002), Inkoop in Strategisch Perspectief. Analyse, Planning en Praktijk, Samson Bedrijfsinformatie, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1 st and 2 nd ed (Dutch text).
Waters, C.D.J . and S. Soman (1989), Sea transport for industrializing countries, International J ournal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 19, No. 8, 18-23.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research; Design and Methods, Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, California, 3 rd ed. 69