Discuss, debate and exchange ideas on latest trends and opportunities in the Business Process Management (BPM) landscape. Deliberate on adding “business value” to clients, vendors, employees and various other stakeholders to enhance customer satisfaction and sustain long term partnerships.

« How sacrosanct is the 'evaluation criteria' in a sourcing project? | Main | Corporate Boards - Wake Up To Streamline Chaotic Supply Bases »

Torque to horsepower: A practitioner's perspective on cataloguing


Jay Leno once said "Horsepower sells cars, but Torque wins races!" Being an auto enthusiast myself, I was pondering over this statement in the context of procurement..

Jay Leno once said "Horsepower sells cars, but Torque wins races!" Being an auto enthusiast myself, I was pondering over this statement in relation to one aspect of procurement, that of bringing more spend under management and realized how true it was in the context of what I was thinking.

One of the key challenges of a procurement professional, a CPO in particular, is to establish a framework within the buying organization to bring more spend under a preferred buy pay channel. One of the many channels that could be defined and a structure weaved around it, to enable the organization make purchases in a streamlined way, is a catalogue.

A catalogue is simply a preferred channel comprising of a listing of items, products or even services that can be used by requestors to make purchases. I will restrict myself to sharing some of my views on internal catalogues in this blog, in the capacity of a practitioner and share a few additional perspectives on punch out catalogues implementation, as we move up the value chain in some of my upcoming blogs.

Why Organizations might choose to go with internal catalogues?
Quite a few organizations, including medium to large ones, have introduced internal catalogues as a way to manage purchases in line with their overall buying strategy to bring more spend under management. Some organizations take the internal catalogue route, which we will realize in a moment, is so cumbersome (should I say tiresome!), inefficient and fraught with complex and challenging handoffs, especially given that some large organizations still use internal catalogues, even when they know they have the option of moving to a more efficient way - that of punch-out catalogues or punch-outs as they are called. The complexities get even more magnified when these organizations are trying to roll out catalogues as a channel of buying to some of their own internal business units, affiliates or geographical entities. Why would they do internal catalogues in the first place? The reasons looks to be multi-fold.  However, the key one is that organizations think that the next logical step to not having a catalogue is to first have an internal catalogue in place since they have (they think they have!) the required resources and wherewithal to manage internal catalogues and then move on to punch outs as a second step. The next reason that I understand is that they like to have complete control over price movement of items in the catalogues that is assumed to be better controlled if managed internally vis-à-vis punch out catalogues. There could be other peripheral reasons including getting to have the business get a flavour of using a new channel that gives a little bit of flexibility to experiment "new ideas" as much as it does to increase adoption! It will be interesting to know whether you feel this is intuitive!!

Identifying and establishing internal catalogues . . . just repetitive buys?
One of the fundamental drivers for identifying a catalogue item is the frequency of the purchase. A repeatable purchase generally qualifies to be an item in the catalogue. An item or a product that is purchased 25 times in a year could be "catalogue-able". However an item purchased even 6 times in a year could be catalogued depending on what the buying pattern, buying behaviour or the purchase value of the item suggests. A spend analysis of the historic spend data (at least one year) at a transactional level, that even includes spend and transaction fragmentation and a demand analysis of the requirements of the key requestors (what the business or the business units are buying) become the key constituents of the inputs needed to determine what can be catalogued and what cannot be. So the result of this exercise is to come up with a list of the key categories and sub categories of items, products and services that can be catalogued. Talking to key stakeholders in the business and obtaining invoice descriptions are key enablers, one should remember, to arrive at the granular level details. A quick exercise to check if the items were purchased from preferred or non-preferred sources will give a quick initial inkling of what the supplier catalogues could be at this stage.

Kraljic Matrix: are you only talking low value-low risk?
It is generally better to select a few initial categories and declare them as a preferred buying channel as part of a catalogue - even a target of 10 catalogues as an initial set could be a good target, if that covers 15% of the transactions rather than waiting for the next two months to select 5 additional suppliers that will take the coverage to 30%! Here is where the Kraljic Matrix comes handy. As we know this is the 2x2 matrix of value versus risk. Most of the catalogue items will fall in the lower left part of the matrix of low risk and low value, which might constitute 60 to 80% of the transactions but anywhere between 10 to 30% of the value or thereabouts. It depends on the spend profile of the organization.

Office stationery, personal protective equipment, computer accessories, bearings, hand tools, packaging material, industrial gases etc. are all "catalogue-able". The standard, off the shelf items can all be part of the catalogue very easily. The list is almost end-less so much so that if we have services, even those can be catalogued as long as they are standard services. For instance, some of the training, cleaning and material handling services can also be catalogued!! Of course, some of key next steps in the path of implementation includes supplier selection through a sourcing event (if preferred suppliers do not already exist), communication to suppliers about the catalogue, their buy in (after resolving some challenges, of course, that they may have) and also officially communicating to requestors in the business about the catalogue and how they need to purchase the items from the respective catalogues.

In my next couple of blogs I am going to share a few more perspectives on the value chain of catalogue maintenance, measuring effectiveness, improving catalogue penetration, utilization, enrichment and adoption across business units/entities, the key challenges and also about punch out catalogues implementation. However, for now I reckon that the best way to enhance utilizing a buy channel is to start the incremental steps of moving from zero catalogue usage to even 5% catalogue usage through a continuous process of identification of items and moving them into a catalogue. The fear of making mistakes shouldn't deter one. There isn't any harm if the item doesn't get bought but if it does, it will help to boost the utilization of the catalogue! This is what I call torque - the will to implement a buy pay channel - it is this torque that will propel the engine forward in small bits from an absolutely level zero. But once it gets moving on its track, you can add more categories, items and services in scope, and that will give the much needed horsepower that will keep the momentum on. It is indeed torque that wins races . . . .

Please feel free to leave your comments so that we can continue in our quest to unravel various other perspectives on this topic. This is just the beginning  . . .


Nice read Prashanth. Your post touches all the extremities of cataloging for reasons, types, coverage in a lucid manner. I would add that Hackett reported that best in class organizations have 40% of their indirect spend cataloged. Rest may not be amenable for cataloging as business case. Keep writing !

Very correct views and insights into cataloguing Prashanth. Our own offering in Infosys, ProcureEdge, leverages this very concept of content development to make buying easy and compliant for all. And yes Services are highly cataloguable, whether Activity based or Unit based, as we are seeing with multiple clients where we develop hands free content.

Prashanth - Very good understanding of catalogues and an holistic view of the same. Keep blogging !!

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Please key in the two words you see in the box to validate your identity as an authentic user and reduce spam.

Subscribe to this blog's feed

Follow us on

Blogger Profiles

Tweets by @InfosysBPM